Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The House is aware that we have been able to reach several more Questions recently because supplementary questions and the content of ministerial replies have been briefer. I look expectantly to some more co-operation today.

SCOTLAND

Health Centres (Rent Charges)

1. Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to review the rent charges to doctors who decide to participate in health centres.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I see no reason to review the existing arrangements under which the rent for accommodation in health centres is calculated by a formula designed to recover the capital costs of the health centre over a period of 60 years.

Mr. Lambie: I appreciate the points made by the Minister about rent charges, but may I draw his attention to a recent decision by the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board not to proceed with health centres at Irvine and Saltcoats because of opposition from local doctors who are concerned about the overheads charged for these centres? Has he any plans to review these overheads, in view of the legitimate complaints of local doctors?

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend has gone to the crux of the matter, namely, the overheads, about which there have been complaints. Officials in my Department are examining the matter, and if general practitioners have ideas to put to us we are prepared to consider them.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the escalation of all kinds of costs and expenses in running them has put the whole concept of health centres in some danger? Will he consider introducing into Scotland the practice adopted in English legislation whereby doctors are not put to extra expense by moving into health centres from their previous practices?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the difference in the situation between England and Scotland. In 1967, when the legislation was introduced, it was for local authorities to provide health centres. That has never been the position in Scotland. In England, changes have happened as a result of the reorganisaiton of the National Health Service. In Scotland, doctors are represented by the Medical Services Committee. The committee has not approached us, but if it does so we shall consider its representations.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that comprehensive health centres are now being placed in jeopardy by doctors because they change their minds about participating after the centres are built? Will the Minister arrange an early meeting with the Health Board, as requested by me on 3rd November?

Mr. Ewing: It is regrettable that doctors are changing their minds. They should expect to pay more for much better conditions. On the question of a meeting with the Health Board, I have written to my hon. Friend saying that at present I do not think it advisable for me to meet the board. The problem is more widespread than just one area.

Highlands and Islands Airports

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the transfer of Highland and Islands airports from the Civil Aviation Authority to the British Airports Authority.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): The Government have not yet reached a decision on this matter, but my right hon. Friend is in close consultation about it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who is responsible for civil aviation, including airports.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind that Scottish Office consultations with the Department of Trade show that the proposed switch-over is opposed by all the staff in the airports concerned, and that there is all-party opposition to it in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: The right hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers in the Scottish Office have consulted a variety of interests, including Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take these matters into consideration when he discusses the matter with the Department of Trade.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that few positive reasons have been given for changing to the British Airports Authority, but does he not agree that the overriding consideration must be whether costs and prices are to be raised and how this will affect local people? Aviation costs are constantly rising, and as a result my constituents are seriously handicapped.

Mr. MacKenzie: We are all conscious of the social and economic consequences of airport policy. That is why we are taking these matters into consideration. I do not think that it necessarily follows that any form of transfer will result in higher charges.

Mr. Monro: In declaring an interest as a private hirer, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that light aircraft operators and private pilots are concerned about the possibility of change, in that landing fees and parking charges will go up, and that the increases should be resisted at all costs?

Mr. MacKenzie: These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. We in the Scottish Office have always been conscious of all the aspects of policy in this matter. There are heavy subsidies, because we are aware of the social consequences.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Minister aware of the strong feelings that exist in Scotland about this possible transfer, and does he realise that it will be bitterly resented if any decision is made before the matter has been fully debated in the House?

Mr. MacKenzie: Ministers cannot go further than they already have. We have already listened to almost all the hon. Members who have a direct interest and to others with indirect interests. But the hon. Gentleman's question is one for the Leader of the House, and I shall pass it on.

Employment

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the success of Government measures to reduce unemployment in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): More than 52,000 persons are currently benefiting from the various employment protection and creation measures introduced by the Government in Scotland.

Mr. Henderson: It is welcome that 52,000 persons should be benefiting in this way, but will not the Government give a St. Andrew's Day present to the Scottish Development Agency and meet its request that it should share in the oil revenue to aid development in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: The agency will have a significantly improved budget next year, and will have much more than it has spent in the past year. It will have more than £80 million, which is a considerable sum of money.

Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the Government are still doing everything possible to find a speedy solution to the unemployment problem at Scottish Timber Products? Will the Minister condemn the SNP, which last night voted against financial assistance for an English mill which will help to provide jobs for Scottish forestry workers, and condemn the cynical opportunism—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be addressed to the Minister only on matters for which he is responsible.

Mr. Canavan: It is this cynical opportunism—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman that the Minister is not responsible for how others vote.

Mr. Millan: I am glad that you said that, Mr. Speaker, because I should not like to be held responsible for the completely cynical behaviour of the SNP during last night's debate.
On my hon. Friend's specific question, yes, we are making every effort to find a solution to this difficult problem, and I hope that we shall do so.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the latest figures show that there are now 15 unemployed Scots for every vacancy and that in some areas the figures are worse? Can he give an assurance that there will be no cut-back on the major new steel investment programme which is needed to revive Scotland's steel industry?

Mr. Millan: The problems in the steel industry are not just in Scotland or the United Kingdom, but world-wide. One of the things that the Government wish to preserve in this difficult situation is a large forward investment programme, and we intend to do that.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish CBI and Scottish TUC relating to unemployment and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: I have had no formal discussions this month either with the Scottish Section of the CBI or the STUC about unemployment. But I am always willing to consider requests from these bodies for discussions on any topics within my sphere of responsibility.

Mr. Monro: This is a serious situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his right hon. Friends the possibility of reconsidering the differentials of the Government's incentives for special development areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that where there is really high unemployment of 14 per cent., 15 per cent., or more, such areas should receive rather more and specially favoured areas rather less, which would keep Government expenditure at the same level?

Mr. Millan: There has always been a case for having larger differentials. I remember arguing that when the House was considering what is now the Industry Act 1972, when the differentials were

introduced. However, there is much to be said—this must be the dominant consideration at present—for maintaining some certainty in regional policy. I do not see that there is any prospect of a change in the differentials in the near future. What we have done recently is to bring more areas—for example, Cumnock and Dundee—into the special development area category.

Mossmoran, Fife (Petrochemical Plant)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish his decision on the results of the public inquiry into the Shell proposals for a petrochemical complex at Mossmoran in Fife.

Mr. Millan: I hope to announce my decision before the end of the year.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that that will be welcomed in the Cowdenbeath area? Will he take note that the majority of people there believe that the answer must be favourable? Does he realise that this is in strange contrast to the policy of the Scottish National Party which, at the outset, was against the proposal altogether?

Mr. Millan: I note what my hon. Friend says. The House will appreciate the difficulties that I have experienced in this matter. The report has now been received by me but I have not yet read it. I shall read it soon, together with the comments of my Department, and make a decision before commenting to the House. I must rest on that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that depending on his decision in relation to Mossmoran is the matter of pipelines through Aberdeenshire, Angus, Perthshire and Fife? Does he realise that there is great concern in those areas, in which there are already three or four pipelines, and will he give an assurance that local views will be fully taken into account?

Mr. Millan: That is a different question, but I can give that assurance because I am aware that pipeline laying involves a certain amount of disruption, particularly to agricultural land, and we try to minimise it.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister take note that, despite the proximity of


oil resources to Scotland, there are few plans for petrochemical developments in Scotland, apart from the Mossmoran project and the Cromarty refinery? Will he steer such projects towards Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I certainly want to see more developments in Scotland and I hope that when we receive the report of the study company which has looked at the gas-gathering pipeline prospects we shall be able to take matters further forward.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statements made by my right hon. Friends during the debate in the House on Monday on EEC draft regulations.

Mr. Sproat: Will the Minister accept the best wishes of the Tory Party for the meeting next week in Europe to protect the interests of the British fishing industry? Will he make it clear to our EEC partners that the latest package is completely unfair and that even if it were fair it would be totally unworkable? Will he also make clear that unless we receive a just settlement the British Government will be compelled to take unilateral conservation measures within an exclusively controlled 50-mile limit?

Mr. Brown: Under normal circumstances I should decline the best wishes of the Tory Party, but in these special circumstances, of the almost complete unanimity that now exists in the House on this point, I accept them. This matter was raised by Opposition Members on Monday and complete assurances were given by the Government on all the points.

Mr. Fell: Does the Minister realise that he will have the complete backing of all hon. Members from East Anglia in his battle on 5th December?

Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) takes a keen interest in these affairs, although I did not see him in the House on Monday. I can think of no better combination

than the mixture of pleasant persuasion and the ability to "put the boot in" that exists in my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that, while he has the full support of the Opposition for his fight next week, he should also address his mind to the system of quotas that might be involved in such an agreement? Is he aware that it is desirable that an agreed system of quotas should be achieved, apart from agreement on amounts, and that he would also have our full support on that?

Mr. Brown: This is a difficult matter. We cannot work outwith a framework without some quota system, but the hon. Gentleman was referring to the way that it should be imposed, whether by licensing or restriction of effort, or a combination of both. We have given an assurance that we are aware of the importance of obtaining agreement on these points.

Scottish Assembly (Taxation Powers)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland from which individuals or organisations he has received representations that the Scottish Assembly should not have powers to levy taxes.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In their comments to my right hon. Friend following the November 1975 White Paper, the Scottish Office of the CBI, the Chambers of Commerce of Dundee and Tayside and Glasgow, the Law Society of Scotland and two members of the public opposed in principle the granting of tax powers to the Scottish Assembly. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland opposed tax powers supplementary to a block fund intended to meet Scottish needs in full.

Mr. Knox: Does the Minister agree that this suggests that few people support the Government's position on this matter? Should not the Government look at this again, with a view to giving powers to the Assembly to levy taxes, thus making devolution more real and the Assembly more responsible?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has failed to realise that in the White Paper of November 1975 there were proposals


for raising revenue on the margin. However, there is no popular way of raising taxes, and the House should recognise that. The proposals were related to a surcharge on the rates and the Government dropped them because the public were not in favour. One of the problems in giving tax powers to the Assembly is the danger that people see arising for industry, and their fears that there might be higher taxes in Scotland than in England. All these problems must be considered by a responsible Government, such as this one.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not true that had such tax powers existed that could have been worked out practically, conscientious civil servants and able Ministers would have thought of them?

Mr. Ewing: In Cmnd. Paper No. 6890 we defined a portfolio of taxes that we had considered, and my right hon. Friend invited suggestions for taxes. We have said that if the Assembly could come up with a tax formula, and would be prepared to meet the cost of raising revenue, we should be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Crawford: Does the Minister agree that a solution would be the establishment of a Scottish Treasury, that it should be the repository of all taxes raised in Scotland, including revenues from oil, and that it should pay the Treasury in Great George Street those moneys required for non-devolved matters?

Mr. Ewing: I never take the hon. Gentleman's simple solutions seriously. I am even more deterred when I realise that at one time he was economic adviser to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Minister's last remark was completely untrue. Will he continue to listen to the views of industrialists in Scotland—the men who make jobs available, who are opposed to any economic differences, whether of tax or any other kind, between Scotland and England— rather than the views of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford)?

Mr. Ewing: As I have said, the Government are prepared to consider views on the question of revenue-raising powers for the Assembly, and no doubt the debate will go on.

Strathclyde (Structure Plan)

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Strathclyde Regional Council on the proposals contained in the council's structural plan.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Strathclyde Region has recently circulated a draft structure plan for consideration by district councils and other interests and it will not be submitted to my right hon. Friend until their comments have been received and considered.

Mrs. Bain: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to the regional council that those of us with constituencies within the region would very much like to lay hands on a copy of the plan in order that we may comment on it as well? Will he also make clear to the council that he will not tolerate a rundown in the new towns programme whilst saving Glasgow?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Lady asks "May I have a copy of the plan?" In Monday's newspapers people were asked to send in for a copy and the newspapers even gave a telephone number, so it pays to read the newspapers, especially the Scottish newspapers.
It is not a question of saving Glasgow. In 1975 the then Secretary of State put out a consultative document in which he said that new towns should be more representative of the democratic make-up of Scotland as a whole. We are very conscious of the problems of new towns as well as the problems of Glasgow. The hon. Lady talks about land. To try to be helpful to her, I read all the SNP documents. I read its land policy, and the only thing I learned was in paragraph 6, which says "'Land' means lands"—

Mr. Speaker: Order—and "brief" means brief.

Mr. Buchan: Is not my hon. Friend being far too kind in his reply? Is it not a terrible thing that a Member of Parliament from the West of Scotland should treat the problems of Glasgow in the way in which they have been treated this afternoon, especially when the SNP so much exploits the figures showing the needs of Glasgow? Should not my hon. Friend reject this with contempt on behalf of the people of Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: Before you excelled me, Mr. Speaker, I was going on to put the sting in the tail, but I always follow the guidance of the Chair. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan). The SNP's attitude to the problems of Glasgow is totally reprehensible. It must start thinking seriously and with a more honest outlook about the problems of Strathclyde in general.

Steel Industry

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had on employment prospects in the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend and I are in close touch with developments in the steel industry in Scotland and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. In recent weeks I have met Members of Parliament from the areas most directly concerned together with trade unionists from various steelworks in Scotland. I have also met the STUC. Later this afternoon I will be meeting a deputation of workers from the Glengarnock steelworks.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman therefore aware of the uncertainties within the steel industry and among steel workers in Scotland? Will he comment on the proposals to mothball one of the units at Hunterston, which could have very adverse effects on investment in steel in Scotland and lead to the situation's becoming critical? It is plain that the right hon. Gentleman's useless answer will not help matters.

Mr. MacKenzie: I answered the hon. Gentleman's Question. He asks me now whether I am prepared to comment on specific issues concerning the steel industry in Scotland, and the answer must be "No". We in the Government are considering the matter. We know how serious it is in Scotland, the whole of the United Kingdom, and throughout the world. We shall make our decisions known as soon as we can.

Mr. Lambie: When my right hon. Friend meets the workers from Glengarnock steelworks with me this afternoon, will he realise that if the proposals

by the British Steel Corporation's Scottish division to shut Glengarnock are carried out the present unemployment rate of 14 per cent. in the Garnock Valley will be increased by one-third of the present labour force, to between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent? When he makes representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about the Scottish point of view on the future of the steel industry, will he make sure that this point is made forcefully? If he does not, the Garnock Valley will become a ghost valley.

Mr. MacKenzie: I shall be prepared to listen to what my hon. Friend and his colleagues say when they talk to me about the matter this afternoon. We are all concerned to see that we have a good steel presence in Scotland, because it is essential, no matter what current difficulties there are throughout the world, that we continue to have such a presence, not only for the social reasons advanced by my hon. Friend but for very good economic reasons.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister agree that whatever the difficulties of the Scottish steel industry they must be seen against the world-wide picture of overcapacity at present? Will he accept from most of the House that nothing must be allowed to interrupt the modernisation of the Scottish steel industry? We hope that he will make that point very clearly to his colleagues in the Government.

Mr. MacKenzie: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be confused between modernisation and massacre. There is a great difference. The Government and the British Steel Corporation have been very conscious of the need for modernization, and I think that about 21 per cent. of the BSC's investment programme is being spent in Scotland at present.

Summary Convictions (Appeals)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to reform the stated case procedure for appeals from summary convictions to allow findings of fact to be reviewed by the Appeal Court.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Summary appeals procedure is among the matters considered by the Thomson Committee on


Criminal Procedure in Scotland. The Committee's third report, on criminal appeals, is likely to be published next month and we shall carry out appropriate consultations before reaching decisions on the recommendations.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister accept that both the case of a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and the case of the police officer raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) highlight the absurd restrictions on the opportunity for individuals convicted under summary procedure to appeal against the facts found against them in the original court? Does he accept that Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where an individual does not have the right to have the facts found against him in the first hearing reviewed by an appeal court? It will not do if there are only lengthy consultations after the Thomson Committee has recommended. This matter requires urgent action by the Government.

Mr. Ewing: It always amazes me that lawyers see the weaknesses in the law only after they become politicians. In case there should be any misunderstanding about the case of the former Solicitor-General for Scotland, may I say that it has been extensively examined and my right hon. Friend does not consider, and has never considered, that he has any grounds for recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The House would be well advised to await the publication of the Thomson Report.

Mr. Small: Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to make any comment on the practice in Scotland of remission of fines, a practice which has received great Press publicity? If that is not possible, can my hon. Friend tell me the increase in the prison population?

Mr. Ewing: This is a very important matter, which received extensive publicity in the newspapers over the weekend. The position must be explained. The legislation that empowers my right hon. Friend to carry out the remission of fines was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1963. It is not true that the powers have been abused. In 1969, 90 per cent. of those who left borstal with fines outstanding had those fines remitted, whereas in 1971, under the Conservative Administration, that figure had increased

to 93 per cent. Therefore, it is a distortion of the facts to have them presented as they were over the weekend.

Mr. Fairbairn: When considering summary appeals, will the Minister appreciate that under the Summary Jurisdiction Act there is already provision for the investigation of facts by the courts? Will he consider a simple adaptation or strengthening of that system, which perhaps could be included in the Criminal Law Bill that we are expecting?

Mr. Ewing: I am interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I always listen with great interest to what he says on legal matters. I shall consider what he says. My advice to the House is to await publication of the report.

Scarinish

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Scarinish.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that on islands such as Tiree, and on most of the islands around the shores of Britain, the creation of jobs in the steel industry or in manufacturing industry is not only unlikely but unwelcome? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of my interest in tourism. Does he agree that the creation of jobs in tourism is far more relevant to many of the islands around the shores of Britain? Will he ensure that his Department and all Government agencies do their best to give equal priority to the creation of jobs in service industries?

Mr. MacKenzie: I agree that the prospect for major steelworks on Tiree is not very high. In fact, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Tourist Board do a great deal of work to assist the islands. There is nothing on the statute book that prevents assistance to service industries. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that in the first year or two years of its operations the SDA has elected to spend as much money as it has on the manufacturing side. However, help has been given to the islands. My right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State has spent a great deal of public money on subsidising not only airports but air services, which help the islands considerably.

Mr. Lipton: I urge my right hon. Friend seriously to reconsider his decision. If and when he goes to the island of Tiree, he should take with him the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and leave him there.

Mr. MacKenzie: If I went to Tiree, which is not the busiest place at this time of year, I think that I should be able to find somebody better to take than the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley).

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Minister has accepted that the SDA has so far concentrated on manufacturing industry. Does he agree that it should take into account the need to give more assistance to service industries? Some of the worst areas of unemployment in the West of Scotland are areas that will never have the benefit of manufacturing industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a switch is made in future?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the SDA has been especially helpful to small companies. It has made considerable grants, as has the HIDB. That has been most valuable from the islanders' point of view.

Solvent Sniffing

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the increasing number of young persons indulging in solvent sniffing which endangers life and limb, if he will set up an inquiry into the practice as a health hazard.

Mr. Harry Ewing: No, Sir. There is no doubt that the practice of solvent sniffing is a serious hazard to health. My right hon. Friend is considering whether existing arrangements for education, detection and the provision of any necessary medical and social care might be improved.

Mr. Dempsey: Has the attention of my hon. Friend been drawn to the regrettable increase in the number of persons who indulge in this dangerous

practice, of which there is ample evidence? Does he not think that it is about time that some sort of campaign was launched involving all the respective services, especially the general practitioners, the clinics and the hospital services, with a view to giving the unfortunates who participate the maximum protection against evils that can seriously endanger their minds, their health and their very lives?

Mr. Ewing: The factual position is that recently notifications have declined. The picture is rather patchy. In some areas there has been an increase, but in most areas there has been a decline. The overall position is that the number of notifications has declined. We must get the right balance between excessive publicity and health education. My view is that we can solve the problem only by a fairly extensive programme of health education. That is the course that we intend to follow.

Mr. Corrie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that something could be done through the schools, especially in senior classes, where the problem is fairly prevalent? Some attention at that age level might be useful.

Mr. Ewing: I accept that the education system has a part to play. That is one of the areas that we are examining.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic outlook for Scotland.

Mr. Millan: The policies pursued by the Government have greatly improved the country's financial position and reduced inflation, thereby removing a major obstacle to increased growth and investment. This improvement will benefit the Scottish economy, as will the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th October.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed that following a party campaign on the basis of "Back to work with Labour" we now have more than 15 unemployed for every vacant job? After a major improvement in Scotland's relative position between 1973 and


February 1976, why should the prospects have been declining so sharply over the past 12 months?

Mr. Millan: The prospects have not been declining so sharply. The present position is very much more favourable than the situation that we inherited in March 1974.

Mr. Grimond: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has seen the optimistic forecasts for growth in the United Kingdom that were published this morning. Will he give us an indication of his forecasts for the growth rate of Scotland next year?

Mr. Millan: I should not like to give precise figures, but I make the general point that the growth rate in Scotland, taken over a period of years, has been slightly more favourable than in the United Kingdom as a whole. I should expect that to continue. The important thing is to get the United Kingdom economy basically right, and that is what the Government are working at.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report issued by the National Institute shows extremely favourable trends but suggests that the most repressive factor is the Government's own monetary policy, especially the increase in the minimum borrowing rate a week ago? Surely it is now necessary to lose that Treasury-dominated policy. Above all, it is surely necessary to restore the public expenditure cuts, which are perhaps the main repressive factor holding back recovery in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I would accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of the state of the economy at the moment, but it is true that the National Institute's report, which was published today, indicates the favourable changes that have taken place in the economy over the past couple of years.
As for the minimum lending rate, it is slightly higher than it was but at 7 per cent. it compares favourably with the figure that I recollect we had in March 1974, when the Labour Government took over. At that time I recollect that it was 12½ per cent.

Mr. Crawford: As a member of the only party that has consistently opposed

public expenditure cuts, may I tell the Secretary of State that both he and the Conservative Opposition should stop being hypocritical? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if Scotland had access to the oil revenues, which are now running at £1,000 million a year, we should have no economic problems?

Mr. Millan: Economically speaking, what the hon. Gentleman has said is a complete absurdity.

Teacher Training Colleges

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement regarding the future of teacher training colleges in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I hope to make a statement in the near future.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is now almost 12 months since he presented his consultative document to the House? No doubt he will recall that his proposals were defeated on two occasions and that he was asked to prepare a scheme to retain all 10 colleges. When will the right hon. Gentleman give us a specific date? When will be bring the scheme forward? Surely he can do it before Christmas.

Mr. Millan: Yes. I intend to fulfil the pledge that I made to make another statement before the end of the year.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Secretary of State ensure that his statement reflects the views of hon. Members who are often ignored in these matters, particularly in regard to the future of Callander Park College?

Mr. Millan: I do not believe that I ever ignore hon. Members, although I listen to some more than to others. I shall take account of what is said in the House.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the grave concern about the future of Callander Park College, will my right hon. Friend have consultations about the submission from the college proposing a more diversified rôle for the college, which would ensure its continuation as a teacher training college and would also offer other courses which would be of educational benefit to the whole community?

Mr. Millan: I assure my hon. Friend that the proposals for the college and those that other colleges have put forward have been carefully considered. I am sure that there has been more consultation on these matters than on any other educational matter that I can think of.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that over the last four years Dunfermline College has been pressing for diversification but has had no reply to its proposals? Is he further aware that every student, lecturer and employee is wholeheartedly opposed to the college's removal to Dundee, as is the whole community?

Mr. Millan: I know that the proposals for Dunfermline College were not enthusiastically welcomed in the college. I have been aware of that for some time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Since the previous proposals were rejected by the House of Commons, can the Secretary of State give an assurance that when he makes a statement it will be a proper statement in the House, subject to questions by hon. Members, and that it will not be in the form of a Written Answer?

Mr. Millan: These matters are not exclusively for me, but I take note of what the hon. Member has said. No doubt if my statement is not universally welcomed there will be opportunities for debating it.

Land Ownership

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to set up a register of land ownership in Scotland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: No, Sir.

Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent revelations by John McEwan, which show that huge estates are still owned by people such as the former hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, with more than 250,000 acres, which make even the 7,000 acres owned by the present hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) look modest? In view of the need for increased production and efficiency in agriculture and forestry, is it not time that we set up an official land register with a view to taking all

land into public ownership for the good of the community?

Mr. Ewing: Mr. McEwan's book contains an estimate of the acreage owned by some large landowners in Scotland. It deals with a small number of landowners and it was compiled from information that was available no later than 1970. I recognise the valuable work that Mr. McEwan has put into his book. The cost of compiling a land register of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend would be prohibitive.

Sir John Gilmour: Is it not true that until a change was made in the making up of the valuation role all the farms were listed with their ownerships?

Mr. Ewing: I shall have to check whether that is so.

Mr. Welsh: While the Minister is considering Scottish land resources, will he also look into the possibility of instituting a detailed Scottish land use survey? Is he aware of the Civic Trust report on urban waste land and the enormous wasted resources that that report showed? Will he implement its findings?

Mr. Ewing: I cannot say whether we are prepared to introduce a land use survey at this stage. There is a committee of inquiry into the use, acquisition and occupancy of agricultural land in Scotland. The committee of inquiry is likely to take between six and nine months to report. We shall wait to see what it has to say.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of land management in Scotland is extremely well done? Is he aware that apart from the SNP no one seems to find it difficult to discover who owns land? Does he agree that a land register of the kind suggested would be a costly waste of public money?

Mr. Ewing: I said that a land ownership register would be costly. Whether it would be a waste of public money is debatable. I can understand the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) being incensed at the Scottish National Party. I find it difficult to hear them complaining about foreigners going to Scotland to buy land when one of their most well-known members in Scotland goes abroad to buy islands in the sun.

Uig Pier, Skye

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now authorise the dredging at Uig Pier, Isle of Skye.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend is still considering the proposal made by the Highland Regional Council that his Department should undertake a scheme of dredging at Uig Pier.

Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that his Department has been considering this matter for a long time and that now there has been a protracted and unreasonable delay in coming to a decision on a small proposal which will cost only £35,000? Will he do what he can to accelerate procedures in his Department?

Mr. Brown: This matter was first raised in 1974 with the Inverness County Council. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and I will not accept responsibility for everything that it does. In 1975 the Highland Regional Council withdrew the offer to acquire the pier and only a few months ago we received the current request for dredging. If the matter was left to the hon. Member for Inverness and myself I am sure that we could come to an amicable agreement.

Perth

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Perth.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Crawford: If the Minister does come to Perth, will he carry on for 30 miles up the A9 to Forfar and then condemn the disgraceful state of that road? Will he also condemn the fact that the Government have made available only £10,000 a mile for repair and maintenance? Is this not disgraceful, particularly since this is the main oil route in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to go to Perth. I have no doubt that he would answer a Question about roads if the hon. Member tabled one on that subject.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that members of the SNP neither

gave evidence nor made submissions to a recent public inquiry on the status of roads in that area?

Mr. MacKenzie: That does not surprise me, particularly since they cannot be bothered to table proper Questions.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 10 years ago a certain Prime Minister from Bexley, Sidcup made a declaration at Perth? Can he ascertain from the Conservative Front Bench the answer to a question that we have been unable to ascertain during the progress of the Scotland Bill? Can he find out whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) still believe in any kind of Assembly at all, because this is a mystery to us?

Mr. MacKenzie: If my right hon. Friend goes to Perth, I doubt whether he will go on such a circuitous route.

Later—

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask what is the best method of correcting a false statement that was made during Question Time by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who said that no Scottish National Party representative had given evidence to the public roads inquiry held in Dundee? I gave written evidence to the inquiry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) asked for my advice. The best place for him to make his speech is in Scotland. It is out of order to pursue the matter now.

Kessock (Bridge)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce a starting and estimated completion date for the bridge at Kessock linking Ross and Cromarty with Inverness.

Mr. McElhone: Construction of the bridge is expected to begin in the spring of 1978 and to be completed in 1981.

Mr. Gray: Is the Minister aware that that reply is rather more encouraging than those that have been given to me in the past? Is he aware that the bridge crossing the Cromarty Firth is now proceeding, and that all the approach roads for


the Kessock bridge are in an advanced state of construction? Does he agree that there is no excuse for his procrastinating further about the construction of the Kessock bridge? May we have an assurance that the sentiments in his main answer will be fulfilled?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Member's praise does not excite me. I should tell the hon. Member, who sometimes appears on Grampian Television, that the Kessock bridge will be started in the spring. Under the Labour Government 20 miles of the A9 have been completed and 49 miles started.

Fish (Conservation)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for conservation of fish stocks in the waters around Scotland after 1st January 1978; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: As was made clear on Monday, during the debate on EEC draft regulations to which the hon. Member made his usual useful contribution, the Government are determined to ensure that adequate steps are taken to protect the stocks of fish in the United Kingdom waters.
To mention two matters in which I know the hon. Member has a particular interest, we hope to obtain the agreement of the Council of Ministers to a continuation of the North Sea herring ban into 1978 and also to an extended closure of the Norway pout box, involving a larger box, in 1978.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I thank the Minister for his courteous reply? I add my best wishes to the right hon. Gentleman in the negotiations next week. In the absence of an agreement with the EEC countries on 1st January, may I have an assurance that, in the interests of conservation and the future of the fishing industry of all the EEC countries, Britain will not be held back in continuing its own conservation measures into 1978?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I can readily give that assurance. It has been repeated time and time again that in the event of a breakdown of justifiable conservation measures we shall take effective national

measures by conversion to protect our industry.

GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate when he next plans to visit the Glasgow Sheriff Court.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I visited Glasgow Sheriff Court on 18th August 1977. My next visit has not yet been arranged.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Lord Advocate not think that it is about time that he called again to see this court? Will he say what steps he has taken to inquire about and take action on the deplorable working conditons in the court since the last time the matter was raised in the House?

The Lord Advocate: I think it is about time that I returned to the court, and I shall go back in the near future. I have taken note of the other points that the hon. Member made. This and other matters are under active consideration by my Department at the moment.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that much of the pressure could be taken off the Glasgow Sheriff Court if many of the less important cases were passed to the district courts and the courts of the justices?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has made a useful and sensible suggestion, which, I might add, my right hon. Friend and I have under consideration at the moment.

TREASON

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether there have been any recent prosecutions in Scotland for the crime of treason.

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend have a look at the case of the Duke of Montrose, who describes himself as an hereditary Sheriff of Dunbartonshire but whose respect of law and order is such that he deserted his native country and became the Minister of Defence for the illegal racialist regime in


Rhodesia? Is it not possible to charge him with treason and, if he fails to show up, to dispossess him of the 9,000 acres of land that he owns in my constituency?

The Lord Advocate: I was not sure at first whether my hon. Friend was going to refer to the Marquis of Montrose, who was executed for treasonable activities in 1650. However, the Duke of Montrose is subject to restriction on entry to the United Kingdom by virtue of the Southern Rhodesia Order 1972, and in his absence from Scotland any question of prosecuting him for offences to which he may be liable does not arise.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS (APPEALS)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will meet the Lord Justice-General to consider the present facilities for the hearing of appeals against summary conviction.

The Lord Advocate: I have no present plans to do so. Procedure for appeals in summary cases was one of the matters recently considered by the Thomson Committee on criminal procedure in Scotland. The committee's third report is likely to be published next month.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord Advocate share the complacent disinterest evidenced by the answer of the Under-Secretary earlier this afternoon? If not, what attempt will he make to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to make a more constructive and quicker response on the matter?

The Lord Advocate: I refute any suggestion that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office are complacent in any respect in this matter. Let me say, however, in response to points canvassed earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), that there is a serious debate about what improvements, if any, can be made in summary appeals. This is being considered by the Government and, as my right hon. Friend has already said, this will be considered when the Thomson Committee makes its third report.

GLASGOW HIGH COURT

Mrs. Bain: asked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to visit Glasgow High Court.

The Lord Advocate: I have no immediate plans to visit the High Court in Glasgow.

Mrs. Bain: Is the Lord Advocate aware of the impact of current legal procedures on rape victims who are called to give evidence against the accused in the High Court, a situation which was epitomised by a recent case in my constituency? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether we can expect future legislation to remove many of these cases from the High Court and allow them to be heard in local sheriff courts?

The Lord Advocate: I do not favour the hon. Lady's latter suggestion. If a matter is sufficiently serious to be tried in the High Court, that is where it should be tried. I am sure that she is not saying that rape is not a serious matter. On her first question, hon. Members on both sides have been good enough to draw to my attention the proposals of the Glasgow Rape Crisis Group, and I share their concern about this matter, as the hon. Lady will know from our discussions. There are certain practical steps which can be taken in this regard.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the damage done to the Glasgow High Court in the recent fire was not as extensive as was first reported?

The Lord Advocate: That is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I think that I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman remind the members of the SNP, who seem to be so ignorant about most of the characteristics of their country, that rape is one of the crimes that can be tried only in the High Court, along with murder and treason, in which the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has expressed an interest?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also ensure that nothing that he or any of his right hon. Friends do will make such a cock-up of the law of rape as has been made in England?

The Lord Advocate: I would not go so far as agreeing with the more extravagant language of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I certainly agree with the statement of the law in the opening part of his question.

WARRANT SALES

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord Advocate when he expects the Scottish Law Commission review of warrant sales to be reported; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Advocate: The Scottish Law Commission has commissioned a research project into factual and sociological aspects of the working of the present law including warrant sales. It is not possible to say when the Commission will be in a position to report, as it will wish to consider the outcome of the research project.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be interesting to know whether the Commission condemns the inhumane system by which credit establishments can embarrass and humiliate debtors publicly and strip them of almost everything they have in their home in order to obtain what is owed them? Will my right hon. and learned Friend say, from the research into the matter, whether we shall be told why the 1828 Act should be used in Scotland when it is used in no other part of the United Kingdom?

The Lord Advocate: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on the latter part of the question by indicating that the research to which I have referred will investigate the circumstances of people who have court action taken against them for debt, the factors leading to the existence of the debt, the impact of debt recovery on the debtor and the help or support that various agencies, including social agencies, can offer. The study will be carried out over nearly two years. The consultants carrying out the work are the University of Edinburgh.
In addition, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has assumed responsibility for a survey of between 1,000 and 1,500 persons against whom debt proceedings have been taken. This will be followed up by field work in other areas. There has been a great lack of hard fact in this area and I am sure that these researches will be of great assistance in ascertaining the facts before we achieve reform.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is probably one of the most unsavoury aspects of Scottish law and that it is time something was done about it? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore make representations to the Scottish Law Commission to see whether it can produce an interim report, so that we might have some early interim legislation on the matter?

The Lord Advocate: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but with a research project of this sort I do not think that it would be worth while asking for an interim report. However, I accept the sense of urgency that has been indicated today and I undertake at once to take the matter up if it can be shown that systematic abuses of the law are taking place.

SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION

Mr. Moate: asked the Lord Advocate when he next expects to meet the Scottish Law Commission.

The Lord Advocate: I met the Commission on 4th July 1977. My next meeting has not yet been arranged. There is, of course, a constant exchange of views between the Commission and my departments.

Mr. Moate: Will the Lord Advocate discuss with the Law Commission and his colleagues the apparent need to tighten up the law on charities in Scotland? Is he aware of the widespread concern that exists about the activities and fund-raising techniques of an organisation described as the David Livingstone Missionary Society, which is apparently immune from scrutiny, since the Charities Act does not apply to Scotland? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into the


general question and this particular case as a matter of urgency?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member has been good enough to raise this matter with my Department on previous occasions. As Public Prosecutor in Scotland, I watch the activities of various bodies there with some care. On the general issue, however, it is correct that the Charities Act does not apply to Scotland; nor do we have registration of charities in Scotland. The simple answer is that people have not yet found that to be necessary. The Court of Session exercises general jurisdiction over charities and so far no further steps have been felt necessary, although we have the matter under review.

Mr. David Steel: Would it not be a kindness to the Scottish Law Commission at least to recognise the value of its work by having a debate at some time on its reports, particularly a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee? Better still, is it not time that we had another miscellaneous law reform provision Bill, of the kind that we have not had for a number of years?

The Lord Advocate: I have noted the right hon. Gentleman's two points. The first is not a matter for me. The other Officers of the House have to determine such matters. But I take note of both points.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the volume and quality of advice that he gets on the question of land tenure reform in Scotland? Is he aware that there is considerable disappointment that no proposals have been brought forward to regularise the position of tenants-at-will in the north-east of Scotland and to give them proper protection against the Tory landlords who are trying to exploit them?

The Lord Advocate: That is a matter that has given the Government some concern. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that a small improvement in the status of tenants-at-will has been included in the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is at present before the House.

Mr. Younger: Is it not highly unsatisfactory that the law on charities should be different north and south of the bor-

der, bearing in mind that those who give to charities and benefit from them are covering the whole of the United Kingdom and not only Scotland? Will the Lord Advocate consider introducing legislation to put matters in Scotland on the same basis as in the United Kingdom as a whole?

The Lord Advocate: The short answer to both questions really must be "No", but I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point, although I think he puts it in over-extravagant language. I think, on the one hand, that there may be advantages in retaining the jurisdiction over charities which has been felt to be satisfactory up to the present time. On the other hand, we have to recognise that new activities are taking place, perhaps under the name of charity, which previously did not take place. These have to be watched, with a view possibly to changing our law but not necessarily making it uniform with that in other parts of the United Kingdom. We are endeavouring to ensure that there is adequate protection for the public.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give some consideration to the stated-case procedure and to the difficulties of the Scottish Police Federation when representing its members who have been convicted of criminal charges? Has this matter been brought before the Scottish Law Commission?

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. These are not matters which, in the normal course, would be brought before the Scottish Law Commission.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Eyre: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
the Home Secretary's decision of yesterday, first, to extend the terms of the amnesty, introduced by his predecessor in this Government on 11th April 1974, to illegal immigrants who have entered this country before 1st January 1973 by deception of various kinds; secondly, to extend to such former illegal immigrants the right to bring into this country their dependant, now overseas, such as a wife or husband, or children under 18.
The earlier amnesty applied to those who had evaded the immigration control


altogether. The present decision should have urgent consideration, because it extends the amnesty to those who gained entry by deceiving the immigration authorities about their identity or entitlement to enter. This deception usually involves the use of a forged or fraudulently obtained passport or other documents, or falsely claiming to have been a dependant of someone lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.
These cases, therefore, involve the breaking of the criminal law and at a time when there is great concern about immigration, it lessens the confidence of people in the Government's will to control immigration, as well as being obviously unfair to those who abide by the rules and do not jump queues.
The additional right to bring in dependants inevitably adds to the problems and responsibilities of local authorities in the crowded immigrant reception areas where there is a shortage of resources—for housing, education and other essential services, as well as serious unemployment. This decision does not help to ease the racial tensions which require urgent solutions to these social problems.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he proposed to seek an emergency debate on the question of the Home Secretary's decision to extend the terms of

the amnesty, announced by his predecessor on 11th April 1974, to illegal immigrants who have entered this country by deception, and, further, giving rights of entry to this country of dependants of those benefiting from this extended amnesty.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The House knows that I do not decide whether this matter should be debated. I merely decide the narrower question whether it takes precedence today or tomorrow over the business set down. I have considered the matter and cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on all three motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Variation) Scheme 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee. [Progress 29th November]

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I raise the same point of order as I raised yesterday, namely, to request that in the debate today one of the Law Officers of the Crown is present.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Although I was not in the Chair, I was present in the Chamber when the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put the proposition which he is seeking to raise again today. As he put it yesterday, I fail to see why he should raise the matter again. He received an answer yesterday from the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Sir Myer. I think that it is one of the conventions of the House, although doubtless your reply will be the same as was given by the Chair yesterday. It is the accepted way of bringing to the attention of Ministers the strong feelings of some Back Benchers on this question.
I gather that I am not alone in this. There are very grave issues and it would be of great assistance to know what the judges and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council think of the task that they have been given. [Interruption.] It is all very well for my right hon. Friend the Lord President to complain about this from a sedentary position, but it was he who gave us that marvellous phrase about all the difficulties of operating within the flapdoodle of the law. This is precisely the sort of situation that we are now facing. Able advocate though the Minister of State is, on this particular clause there is a very strong argument for having an authoritative statement from the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.
I discovered from the Attorney-General last night that, for reasons which are quite understandable, he is in Belfast. I talked to the Solicitor-General, and at that time

it was not clear whether he would be present. He was to have further consultations, and I make no complaint about that. I ask the Government whether on this clause there ought not to be an authoritative statement from one of the Law Officers of the Crown as to what the Judicial Committee thinks about the rôle that it has been given.
It is one thing for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say at the end of Second Reading, in answer to a question to which I referred yesterday, that the Judicial Committee had been informed. What we are not told is what the Judicial Committee thinks about the role that it has been given.
It would be extremely useful for the House of Commons to know what the judges themselves think. Many of us feel that political decisions ought to be made by the political process and not by the lawyers. No one has been more eloquent on this subject than my right hon. Friend the Lord President in the matter of Sir John Donaldson. He had a lot to say on that, and very eloquently, too. In those circumstances—I put it once again by the established means—there ought to be a statement as to what the judges themselves think about the rôle that they have been given.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman indicated that he knew what the answer would be. He is quite correct. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. Since the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department—for reasons that all of us understand—are not able to be here, but since we have the unusual benefit of the attendance of the Lord Advocate, is it not possible that if the Lord Advocate wished to catch your eye he might be able to deal with the very important issue that has been raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell? If the Lord Advocate were to seek to make a statement to meet the hon. Gentleman's point and if he sought to catch your eye to do so, is it possible that you would call him?

The First Deputy Chairman: I shall not go into hypothetical questions. All


I am concerned with is the fact that no one has tried to make any statement at this juncture. We are not considering statements but rather we are about to consider the amendment on the Order Paper.

Clause 20

SCRUTINY OF ASSEMBLY BILLS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 182, in page 8, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 and insert—
'(1)(a) No Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly shall be enacted until it shall have been considered by both Houses of Parliament; and
(b) if either House is of the opinion that the Bill is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly or is incompatible with the international and community obligations of the United Kingdom, the Bill shall be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for decision.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 102, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert 'Both Houses of Parliament'.

No. 103, in page 8, line 13, leave out 'he' and insert 'one'.

No. 104, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'he' and insert 'it'.

No. 106, in page 8, line 18, leave out 'he' and insert' one'.

No. 108, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'he' and insert 'it''.

No. 109, in page 8, line 24, leave out 'he' and insert 'it'.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The Lord Advocate, who has a very heavy responsibility for guiding the Committee, was just about to leave the Chamber. May I say how very pleased indeed the Committee is that he has just come back?

Mr. Page: I am particularly pleased, because, although the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) had difficulty in making their points concerning the Law Officers, I anticipated that there would be no objection if I raised this very point in moving the amendment.
At the outset I must declare an interest. I am a Privy Council appeal agent. It is not generally known what such agents are, but they are those solicitors who are entitled, having signed the roll of Privy Council appeal agents, to instruct counsel in the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee is a forum which is not commonly known. I see that the Lord Advocate is now crossing the Floor to join me. I hope that he will listen to this. The Judicial Committee is a forum the function of which is not generally known. The amendments deal with the Judicial Committee and a reference to the Judicial Committee.
There is one little word in the clause which I fear I have been tempted to repeat in the amendment and which shows a misunderstanding of the function of the Judicial Committee. That word is "decision". The Judicial Committee does not come to a decision or a judgment. It traditionally advises Her Majesty.
There is only one instance that I am aware of where the Judicial Committee came to a judgment. That was in the case of Malaysia. But normally the Judicial Committee is a body which is not allowed to come to a judgment. It is a committee of the British Government which advises Her Majesty. This is not just a technical point. It goes right to the basis of all references to the Judicial Committee. I wanted to make that clear at the commencement.

Mr. John Stokes: My right hon. Friend may develop this theme. If not, I shall endeavour to catch the eye of the Chair to do so. But it is important for the Committee to know that this clause touches on the Royal Prerogative, if not the Monarchy. That is a point of the highest importance which must be carefully scrutinised by the Committee.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Page: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The point I was making is that the Judicial Committee is not strictly a court but an advisory committee to Her Majesty. I do not know why under Clause 20 it was chosen to refer matters to the Judicial Committee. After all, it has almost exactly the same composition as the House of Lords. On frequent occasions I have been able to get a case


set down for the Judicial Committee because the personnel of the Judicial Committee sits in the House of Lords. Why cannot we use the ordinary judiciary—the House of Lords—as the highest court rather than going to the Judicial Committee?
Indeed, it is rather extraordinary—again, this is by direct reference to the amendment—that when there is to be a case of the Scottish Assembly breaking national rules, the case does not go to the Judicial Committee. If the Scottish Assembly endeavours to pass a Bill which is contrary to Community regulations or to international obligations of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State merely puts a dead stop to it and does not refer it to the Judicial Committee. That is strange, because that is the kind of case with which the Judicial Committee is always dealing. It is always dealing with international affairs—international as between Commonweath countries and, indeed, the forms of independent Commonwealth countries that we now have.
The very basis of Clause 20 is in question. Amendment No. 182 endeavours to simplify the rather unusual procedure that is set out in the clause itself. We have now reached the stage where the Committee has approved that the Assembly may legislate on devolved matters, which is duly set out in Schedule 10, and for Scotland only. But if it legislates on a devolved matter and for Scotland only, it can legislate for the whole of the United Kingdom on anything which is necessary, expedient, incidental, or consequential as a result. That is what the Committee accepted last night, despite the amendment that I moved.
By Clause 20 the Secretary of State is appointed as referee to see that the Scottish Assembly keeps to the rules of legislative competence. If he is of opinion —I stress that—that the Scottish Assembly can be booked for foul play, or for breaking the rules of legislation competence, he blows his whistle and the Judicial Committee marches on to the field. I put it in that picturesque way but that is the position.
Even if the complaint against the Scottish Assembly is that it has broken the rules of the European Community or any other treaty of the United King-

dom, all the Secretary of State is required to do under the formula in Clause 20 is to say that he will not advise Her Majesty to give her Royal Assent to the Bill in question. In fact, he orders everyone off the field and that is the end of it. It does not go to any sort of judicial tribunal at all.
It seems to me that Clause 20 is the most amateurish, most inadequate and most infantile effort to erect a structure of procedure for the resolution of conflict not between two legislatures—Parliament and the Scottish Assembly—but between the United Kingdom Government in the form of the Secretary of State and the Scottish legislature, the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that he may or may not be in a position to answer in view of his connections with the Judicial Committee? When the Minister said a fortnight ago that the Judicial Committee had been informed about these things, was it asked at the same time for its opinion of the rôle that it had been given? Did the lawyers with whom the right hon. Gentleman is in association on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council give any kind of opinion on the task that they are being asked to perform?

Mr. Page: I do not know how one could formally inform the Judicial Committee or ask for its opinion without adopting the normal procedure of a petition to the Judicial Committee. That is how one originates procedure before the Committee. It is not a body to which one can go at any time and ask for its opinion. It is a tribunal, a forum.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister of State said:
We have ensured that the Judicial Committee and the courts' administrations generally have been informed about the proposals which concern them."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 197.]

Mr. Page: I assume that that must mean that the Registrar of the Judicial Committee, who is the administrator of that body, and each individual judge who is entitled to sit on the Committee was informed. I do not know whether each has given his opinion informally. I know nothing of a formal petition to the Judicial Committee for its opinion. There


are matters in which the Judicial Committee can be required to give an opinion ex parte without any particular issue before it, but it is by formal petition that the case will be argued before the Judicial Committee.
The architects of Clause 20 realised that every federal constitution has some sort of procedure and some structure for decision and settling disputes as to the jurisdiction of the two legislatures concerned. With a sort of federal scaffolding, the architects of the clause endeavoured to erect a devolution system, a devolution constitution, and it has come out as a very rickety sort of structure.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: As far as I recollect it—the right hon. Gentleman's recollection will no doubt be better than mine—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been asked to give a view in the past and has given a view on the relationships or disputes between the Federal Government of Canada and the Provincial Governments of Canada. Is that not a precise parallel of what the right hon. Gentleman suggests here?

Mr. Page: I am not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying that it is a structure that is inappropriate to this Bill. It is a federal form of structure that has been set up here, but the Bill is not setting up a federation. It is an endeavour to adapt a federal structure, which has been done so many times throughout the Bill with so much failure.

Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has recalled the Canadian experience. What happened there was that the Judicial Committee was, in effect, responsible for taking decisions on whether something could be done at provincial level or federal level in Ottawa. The political disagreements that ensued from its pursuing that role were so intense that the Canadians decided to abolish appeals to the Privy Council because it could not keep itself out of politics. For that reason, appeals to the Privy Council were terminated.

Mr. Page: I agree about the failure of that type of reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Pre-

cedent does not augur well for the system that Clause 20 endeavours to adopt.
The important point that I wish to make is that it is not a procedure for settling issues between Parliament and the Assembly. As I see it, both Houses of this Parliament can pass resolutions unanimously saying that in their opinion a particular Bill of the Scottish Assembly is not within the Assembly's legislative competence.
But nothing whatever need happen as a result of those resolutions. This House and another place will not be asked for an opinion. The Secretary of State is the one to give his opinion. Any views expressed by this House or the other place can be ignored by the Scottish Assembly.
To whom is the Secretary of State accountable and responsible in forming this opinion? We have raised this point before. I may have been given an answer, but I have never been able to understand exactly what the answer was. To whom is the Secretary of State responsible for forming an opinion that the Scottish Assembly is acting outside its legislative competence? If he is accountable only to the Assembly, the whole clause is pointless. The clause merely says that, if the advice of the Scottish Assembly or the Scottish Executive holding a majority in the Assembly is that a Bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly, the Secretary of State will have to form an opinion that it is, and it will never be referred to the Judicial Committee. On the other hand, the Secretary of State is directly responsible to this Parliament and I presume that he would have to respond to motions in this House and another place.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that Parliament will have the opportunity of initiating any claim that the Scottish Assembly is acting outside its legislative competence. The amendments seek to place Parliament in the position in which Clause 20 places the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 102 and others have been drafted in desperation, accepting the formula, but merely putting the word "Parliament" in the place of "Secretary of State" in the hope that the Minister will at least accent this, after all his doggedness, determination and obstinacy on every amendment that we have put forward.
I do not like Amendment No. 102 and the others. I much prefer Amendment No. 182, which does almost the same thing, but refers the international breaches by the Scottish Assembly to the Judicial Committee in exactly the way that other breaches are to be referred.
Will it be practicable for Parliament to consider every Scottish Bill? The clause says that the Secretary of State should consider every Bill. The amendment says that Parliament should consider every Bill. At present, both Houses consider all subordinate legislation, and we do not find any great difficulty in doing so. The House does so by such legislation being laid before it by Statutory Instrument and by that subordinate legislation being scrutinised in Committee and, if necessary, reported to the House. It is also done by such legislation being scrutinised by right hon. and hon. Members and by being brought before the House selectively either on a Prayer or an affirmative resolution.
There is no great difficulty in this. It is not as if the House would have to debate every Bill of the Scottish Assembly. It would merely look at it in the same way that it looks at ministerial legislation at present, or EEC regulations and directives. We do not find great difficulty in selecting those matters that have dynamite in them and in passing those that seem perfectly acceptable and not dangerous. The clause itself states:
The Secretary of State shall consider every Bill passed by the Assembly".
In practice the Secretary of State personally will not do it at all. His civil servants will examine each Bill and advise him. Why should not right hon. and hon. Members of this House look at Bills in exactly the same way? Why should it be reserved to civil servants to advise the Secretary of State rather than right hon. and hon. Members?
4.0 p.m.
Clause 20 means that this legislation will be considered by the Secretary of State's advisers. He will be advised about which piece of legislation is within or without the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly. I am not sure who those advisers may be, whether they will be from the United Kingdom Civil Service or the Scottish Civil Service. What I am quite sure of is that Clause 20

abandons the supremacy of Parliament and hands that supremacy over to the Civil Service.
Even the Scottish National Party should accept this amendment and should be pleased to do so. If the amendment is accepted, those members of that party who are Members of this House will have a chance to argue their points in this House. It is the only chance they will get. Otherwise, the Secretary of State makes the decision and there will be no chance for SNP Members of Parliament to argue the point.
There can be no doubt that as Clause 20 stands Parliament is deprived of its legislative supremacy. The amendments, particularly No. 182, seek to restore that in what is a perfectly practical way.

Mr. Dalyell: In my view this is a matter of the greatest importance. I start with the proposition that political decisions ought to be made by the political process and not handed to lawyers. This is a proposition that was highly acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Lord President because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) well remembers, a great deal was said by the Labour Party when we were in opposition about a High Court judge being involved in politics. It is no good the Minister of State or anyone else saying that it is simply a decision on vires—some neutral decision that lawyers can legitimately make.
The truth of the matter is that whenever the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is brought in to decide as between the Assembly and Parliament in Westminster, it will concern, by definition, a subject of controversy. If that were not so, there would be no row and no need to bring in the Committee in the first place. We cannot say to ourselves "Oh well, it is just the lawyers deciding a legal problem in a vacuum." What they are being asked to do is to decide on a highly-charged political matter.
It might be of help to this Committee if I explained precisely the composition of the Judicial Committee. There is a great deal of vagueness about this, and I must say that before this subject arose my ignorance was just as great as that of any other colleague. I have found out from the Library that the Judicial Committee consists of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord


President, ex-Lord Presidents, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—that is, judges in the House of Lords—the Lord Justices of Appeal—that is, judges of the Court of Appeal—and
such other members of the Privy Council as shall from time to time hold or have held 'high judicial office'
within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Acts 1876 and 1877, I exclude the Commonwealth representatives.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not know why the hon. Member should exclude the Commonwealth representatives. They are important. We have an ex-Attorney-General of Ceylon, a Lord Chief Justice of Australia, and so on. I am not sure why they should decide issues between Scotland and England.

Mr. Dalyell: I was simply trying to save time. I should have included Commonwealth representatives. I have a list here of the members of the Judicial Committee. They include the Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones; the Lord President of the Council, Thomas Frederick, Lord Peart; Reginald Edward, Viscount Dilhorne; John Clarke, Lord MacDermott; Alfred Thompson, Lord Denning; John William, Lord Morris; Francis Lord Charlton; Christopher William Graham, Lord Guest; Patrick Arthur, Lord Devlin; Edward Holroyd, Lord Pearce; Gerald Austin, Lord Gardiner; Richard Orme, Lord Wilberforce; Colin Hargreaves, Lord Pearson; Herbert William, Lord Aylestone William John Kenneth, Lord Diplock; Quinton McGarel, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone; John Lord Wheatley; Jocelyn Edward Salis, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; Arthur Geoffrey Neale, Lord Cross of Chelsea; Lord Widgery; Lord Kilbrandon.
Let us consider Lord Kilbrandon. Here is a man who is supposed to be in the position of a neutral judge. He is no less prejudiced on these matters than I am.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Gentleman is surely familiar with the practice that prevails whereby judges do not sit on matters with which they have been previously concerned, whether in a political capacity, whether through a court of inquiry or anything of that kind. It is unthinkable to me that Lord Kilbrandon would be called upon to sit

on the Judicial Committee in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: It may be unthinkable but Lord Kilbrandon is entitled to sit on the Judicial Committee. In the issue of the Scotsman of 28th November, Lord Kilbrandon said some explosive things. He said:
Two hundred and seventy years ago these were vital questions. It is not so easy to perceive an overriding necessity for union in the 1970s.
The newspaper report went on:
Lord Kilbrandon said the Assembly would have power to lay down their own procedure and he expressed the hope that they would avoid entangling themselves in some of the absurdities discreditable to a legislature pretending to be in business.
That is a straight report of Lord Kilbrandon's speech. Now that he has retired he is entitled to express such a point of view. I am sure that he must have held such prejudices while he was a judge and I am sure that many judges hold political views. I ask once again that political decisions should be made not through the legal process but through the political process.
I had better continue with the list of members of the Judicial Committee. Other members include Lord Salmon; Lord Edmund-Davies; Lord Home of the Hirsel; Lord Fraser; Lord Russell; Lord Carr; Lord Keith of Kinkel; Lord Glenamara, who has certainly played a part in this discussion.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman not do better if he were to give us a reading from his book?

Mr. Dalyell: Lord Glenamara was the right hon. Edward Short. I could go on with the list. It is an exceedingly unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Gow: Although the hon. Gentleman is dealing with a point of immense legal and constitutional importance, so as not to spread dismay and consternation throughout the land may I ask him to make it plain that the customs of the Judicial Committee are such that neither the Chairman of Cable and Wireless Ltd. nor the Lord President of the Council will ever be called upon to act in a judicial capacity?

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the Minister of State will make this clear. So far it has not been made clear.
I do not want to take too much time, because of the Guillotine. But I want to put a direct question to my hon. Friend. What did he mean when he said that the Government had ensured that the Judicial Committee and the courts' administrations generally had been informed about the proposal which concerned them? I say bluntly that there are certain people in the list that I have just read who have not been so informed.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that his comments about the rôle of the Judicial Committee are a very good indication of the way in which the British constitution acts mostly by custom and precedent and that it is the fact that, although the custom and precedent is as laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), no one looking at our constitution who did not know the precedents and the customs would understand the way in which the Judicial Committee was likely to act? It is when we start to try to incorporate continental systems of a written constitution that, understandably, we get into these difficulties.

Mr. Dalyell: We are in very genuine difficulty about this. It is quite clear that there would be endless argument about those people from whom the members of the Judicial Committee were chosen. I look forward to hearing how they will be chosen. Some of those people might themselves say that they were unwilling to serve on any kind of Judicial Committee. That would be to their credit. They might say, very reasonably, "We have very strong views of a political nature. How can we be asked to serve on a Judicial Committee?" That is one problem.
The second problem is to know who will accept a decision, in a highly charged political situation, handed down from on high by a Judicial Committee when that decision goes against them?
Let us suppose that there was a Judicial Committee decision about a kind of Tameside situation. That is what the

argument would be about. It would be about that, about money or about some other difficult issue. It would be only human nature for the people who were defeated to say "Why should we take it from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?"
I say simply that these matters have to be settled by the political process in a political way and not handed over to lawyers. Lawyers cannot do the so-called dirty work for the politicians. Apart from anything else, it is the surest way of bringing the judges and the High Court into disrepute by embroiling them in politics, often against their will.
But I want to know what is meant by my hon. Friend's statement about ensuring that the Judicial Committee was informed. I should also like to be clear about the view of the lawyers on this matter. With due respect to the Minister of State, it is not his job as the advocate of the Bill to do this task—all other tasks, possibly, but not this one. We should have an authoritative statement from the Law Officers, speaking as law officers after consultation with the Lord Chancellor.
I have to report to the Committee that I have been singularly unable to persuade the Law Officers to make any such statement. This should be a statement coming with the authority of the Lord Chancellor of what the judges think about the rôle that they have been given. My information is that the judges are very unhappy about many aspects of this.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In considering this group of amendments —and it will be the same in considering the next group—the Committee is beginning to taste some of the delights of a written constitution. The reality behind the debate appeared, albeit in different ways, from both the speech of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and that of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
In two respects in recent years, we have started to provide ourselves with elements of a written constitution. The first such occasion was by becoming members of the European Economic Community. The Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession are the first written constitution which this country


has had. That decision, too, has produced its effects in the wording of this clause and in the thought processes of the Government, which one can trace as one studies its provisions.
But in the case of this Bill, what we are attempting is to give a partial written constitution to a part of the Kingdom. It is the old phenomenon, which we have met so often in these debates, of the consequences of semi-federalism.
There is one certain and indispensable concomitant of a written constitution. That is a supreme court—an authority which can authoritatively and beyond dispute adjudicate upon what is, and what is not, constitutional and which, by the very fact of accepting that constitution, is accepted as entitled to do this.
Following on from the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian, it is implicit in having a written constitution—it was implicit in signing the Treaty of Accession in 1972—that we accept that highly political and ultimately overriding decisions will sometimes be taken not by bodies responsible to the people but by judges. The people of a country which lives under a written constitution lives in that sense under the rule of judges. I am emboldened to describe them—I do not know whether the word has been invented before—as the inhabitants of a critocracy.
The difficulty of our relations with the European Community is not one of logic. The question whether our legislation in this House is repugnant to the law of the Community is decided by the Supreme Court of the Community—though that is not actually its name. The problem there is whether or not we like it, whether we are content that it should be so; but at any rate the logic is intact.
The trouble with this clause, with which the amendments vainly try to cope, is that we have a semi-federal and semi-written constitution for part of the Kingdom, but have not got the supreme court. What we are looking for in the clause and in the attempts to amend it is an acceptable constitutional court of a federal United Kingdom which does not exist but which is implicit in what we are trying to do in endowing Scotland, and Scotland alone, with a legislature.
Two questions have to be met at the outset when we address ourselves as the

Government have done—we can trace their struggles in the text of the clause—to the problem. The first is at what point the deus ex machina—the judgment—shall be brought in. Is it to be brought in to stop the subordinate legislature while it is still doing something which someone else apprehends is ultra vires, do we wait until they have completed all the processes, or, finally, is it only when law has apparently been made by the subordinate assembly that what they have done is to be challenged and referred to adjudication?
Different answers have been given at different times by this House. In the case of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, power was taken to intervene at an early stage. The governing words are:
If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant…in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether any Act…or any Bill introduced in either of those Parliaments"—
the Northern Ireland Parliament or the Southern Ireland Parliament—goes beyond its powers, then a certain reference shall be made.
I will come to the reference in a moment. For the present I am concerned with the fact that in 1920, in setting up subordinate legislatures in the island of Ireland, the view was taken that one could not let those subordinate legislatures go on through all the processes—at least one should have the power to prevent them from doing so—and then, when they had completely agreed to all stages of the legislation, come along and say "But that is ultra vires".
In the case of the misbegotten Northern Ireland constitution of 1973—that is a very polite term compared with others which are commonly applied to it in Northern Ireland—there was provision under Section 5 to prevent a Measure being brought in at all if it appeared to the Secretary of State—the Clerk of that Assembly was to examine Measures with this in view—that it was, or might be, ultra vires. So that was a still earlier stage.
In this clause, however, the Government propose—for the effective words in lines 11 and 12 are "every Bill passed"—that the adjudication shall only be started when the Bill has gone through all stages in the Scottish Assembly, thus, one would


imagine, maximising the implicit friction and clash of political intention by allowing the Scottish Assembly to give full assent to the proposals, before the Secretary of State steps in and says "But I am not going to take it to the Queen; so there!".
The last possible stage, which we have not ousted by this Bill—indeed, it was not ousted by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act—was that one waits until the Act is in fact apparent law before it can be submitted to whatever is the appropriate jurisdiction. That, of course, is the procedure inside the EEC: we do not have its court listening in on our proceedings, or intervening between this House and the submission of the petitions to this House to Her Majesty, but when we have performed a legislative Act, anyone can challenge its validity before the court of the EEC.
Therefore, I say first, that there is a very real difficulty, which I do not believe this clause has satisfactorily solved, concerning the stage in the subordinate legislative process at which the question of vires is to be tested. More serious, however, is the question, by whom it is to be done—to whom the reference is to be made. Here there are three or four possibilities in the arena. The first—this is what I gather would appeal, judging from his speech, to the hon. Member for West Lothian—is that the decision should be recognised clearly as political, as an act of the superior Government based on the superior Parliament, and that the Secretary of State himself should pronounce upon the vires of a Bill when it becomes an Act.
That, one might say, is following the precedent, though not the timing, of the Northern Ireland Act 1973, in which it was the Secretary of State who said to the Northern Ireland Assembly "Yes, you can carry on with that legislation" or, "No, you cannot carry on with that legislation", and where his certificate was required in any case where he thought that something was beyond the legislative competence of the Assembly before it could complete the legislative process. That is one possibility, that the Secretary of State could do it. That was the Government's first thought. That was the proposition which the Govern-

ment first presented to the House a year or two ago in the form of the White Paper.
The second possibility is that we should find a judicial authority to do the job. I must say that it is repugnant to me, despite my following the arguments of the hon. Member for West Lothian, that the interpretation of the effect of a statute should be authoritatively taken other than by a judicial process. Therefore, I can understand the reasons which led the Government to abandon their original idea of an executive ruling and to substitute a judicial ruling. But then, when we turn round and try to do that, we discover great problems in finding an appropriate judicial body.
I have to say to the Secretary of State that there are severe problems attaching to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for this purpose. I know, and I have indicated already, that there is a precedent for this—but I believe it is a precedent which should give us pause—in the Act of 1920, an Act, as it was ironically called,
for the better government of Ireland",
where it was provided that reference could be made, upon the motion of the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I ask the Committee for a moment to recall the background of the 1920 Act, the Irish Home Rule Act as split into two following the events which occurred between 1914 and 1920. An essential element of that background was the expectation—I might almost say "the intention", and that would be not imputing anything unworthy to any party—that the development of that constitution should follow the lines of the development of the Canadian constitution. The analogy of Dominion status and of the Canadian evolution was thoroughly present to the minds of those who, from 1916 onwards, were contemplating how the Government of Ireland Act 1914 would require to be amended if it was to survive at all and form the basis of future political development.
It was, therefore, entirely natural that, looking for a judicial authority to perform this function, they should select that judicial authority which characteristically


is invoked by the Crown, not to settle the interpretation of the law of this country, not to settle the meaning of the statutes which this House of Commons passes, but to settle matters arising under the Crown but outside this realm and outside the area represented by this House of Commons. That is how the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands come in and how all the Indian and colonial appellate jurisdiction which was built up by the Privy Council over a century arose. So it was entirely natural in that context that Dominion status in embryo should be provided with a Dominion-type judicature to settle questions of ultra vires.
But, as I say, the difficulty with which we are here confronted is that we are invoking that judicial authority to give an opinion on the meaning of a statute which this House of Commons is engaged in framing for the management of an integral part, which we assert will remain no less integral, of this United Kingdom under this Parliament.
Therefore, we are led to ask whether there is any alternative. The alternative, of course, would be to use the same instance as is called into play when any other question arises whether the action of a Minister is intra vires or in the interpretation of an Act of this House of Commons. Of course, since we have no written constitution and since Parliament is sovereign, there can be no question of the vires of an Act, nor do we have an authority to rule upon the vires of our Acts except in the context of the federation to which we belong that is known as the European Economic Community. Domestically we do not have that. Nevertheless, the courts are there, the ordinary courts—with recourse right up to the House of Lords—for the interpretation of the law made by this House of Commons when doubt is cast upon it or when dispute arises.
4.30 p.m.
So why was not this question of vires also left to due process of law in the courts? I suspect that there are two reasons. I suspect that the first reason is that in that event one would have to invoke the ultra vires procedure at the very last stage, not at the sort of penultimate stage when Mr. Secretary of State is about to go to the Queen with a Bill but after the last stage, when it is an Act,

so that one would be confronted with the possibility of an Act of the Scottish Parliament being struck down by the courts of this country and potentially, in the last resort, by the House of Lords.
There may be severe administrative inconvenience in that.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: I see that the Lord Advocate does not think that there is. I am greatly encouraged because in that case I am fortified in my instinct that if we possibly could, we should use the same judicial means for settling the meaning and application of this statute as of any other statute. But there was probably also, in the minds of the Government—and I should be interested if the Minister of State could comment on this—a doubt whether it is quite consistent with what we are doing, or purporting to do, in setting up a legislature for Scotland, that the courts of the United Kingdom and ultimately the House of Lords should decide what is to be the limit upon the powers of the Parliament of Scotland, and should be given authority to strike down Acts of the Parliament of Scotland if they find them ultra vires.

Mr. Dalyell: Imagine what would be said by SNP Members in Scotland if this happened. Would not they have a heyday against the Lords?

Mr. Powell: I suspect that the "i" that the hon. Member has dotted was very much in view by the Government when they went for preference for what I shall describe for brevity as colonial judicature.
Thus what this debate is doing is to present to us once again the consequences of attempting to go half federal, of attempting to give a part, and a part only, of this realm a written constitution and partial self-government while still pretending that it remains an integral part of the Kingdom and subject to the authority of the House of Commons, in every respect as the other parts of the Kingdom. Whichever way we test it—and this is the significance—we have not yet found a clause which, when examined, did not yield the same result: one cannot do it. We are attempting to do something inherently contradictory. That is why both the clause and the amendments —it is no criticism, for they make the


point—fail, because we are bound to fail in our attempt.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I share the view of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that much of the genuine as opposed to the political difficulty of this Bill and of our experience in this House from time to time has been that we go half way along the road and then stop without reaching our destination. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposal was semi-federal. I would prefer to call it a semi-devolutionary proposal. There is a sharp distinction between federalism and the principle of devolution. It covers only one part in terms of the legislative devolution of the United Kingdom.
I have strongly argued—initially in private because it would have been difficult for me to argue this case publicly at one stage—that we would have been wiser to delay a little and to work out a fully fledged scheme for the whole of the United Kingdom if we wished to travel on that road at all. We are bound to experience difficulties if we proceed on this route.
On the other hand, that is no argument for not proceeding on that route, for a simple reason. If we were to try to work out such a scheme, such are the procedures of this House—and I have some sympathy with the words of Lord Kilbrandon on this subject—that we should never legislate at all. I hope that this Bill will be the beginning of our travelling further along that same road until we have a fully fledged devolutionary system.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that if we legislate in respect of Scotland alone and turn to the question of the determination of vires we shall face a hideous dilemma. We can either use the existing judicial mechanism in determining vires, or we can establish a totally new judicial mechanism in the shape of a supreme court, which does not exist, for this one purpose alone in respect of one part of the United Kingdom. We can also say "Let us dispense with judicial mechanisms totally and decide all such questions as if they were straightforward political questions."
That is the view taken by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who moved Amendment No. 182. He wishes

this House and another place to take decisions on matters of vires.
The right hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that I have more sympathy with him in that idea than he might suspect, because initially that was my view. He will remember that at one stage it was the Government's view. I was very attracted at that stage by the notion that we should not follow either of the other two courses—in other words that we should neither invent new judicial mechanisms nor, alternatively, impose either what the right hon. Member for Down, South called with some justification the colonial judicial process or the normal judicial process in regard to Acts of the Scottish Assembly in determining their vires.
On the other hand, what turned me against that view and against the proposal put by the right hon. Member for Crosby was the realisation—a realisation that every politician should find it easy to comprehend—that from time to time this House does not always vote in a judicial manner but that sometimes its behaviour is occasioned by matters of political advantage. That may be to the political advantage either of a group or party in this House, or particular individuals in this House.
I put to the right hon. Member for Crosby that it is not inconceivable that in a situation where the Conservative Party had a single-figure majority in this House and yet was not in a majority in the Scottish Assembly a Conservative Secretary of State would move to reject an Assembly measure on the ground that it was outside the legal competence of the Assembly and that he would fail to get that motion through this House because it might be to the advantage of the Labour Party, the SNP or the Liberal Party to ensure that the motion was rejected. Indeed, there would be certain Scottish Members in the Conservative Party who as individuals would find their own political position in jeopardy if they were to support that Conservative Government on such a proposal. I think that that would bring the whole process of this House into disrepute and would turn a judicial matter into a head-on political confrontation between the Scottish Assembly and this House.
The right hon. Member for Crosby said that it might be to the advantage


of the SNP to vote for his amendment, and I think he is right. The policy of the SNP Members is to produce confrontation of that kind because, so far as they can see, only they can benefit from such confrontation. I hope that SNP Members will not follow his advice, but I understand the point he was making.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman suggests that a decision of this House might be made on a political basis, but if that decision is made by a Secretary of State, it is even more likely to be a decision on a political basis.

Mr. Fowler: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to a decision to be made by a Secretary of State, he is referring to the initial decision whether to refer a matter to the Privy Council. Once the Secretary of State has done that he is, as the clause is drafted, bound by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The right hon. Gentleman asked "To whom is the Secretary of State responsible in forming his opinion?" The right hon. Gentleman refers to the negative case. What happens when a Secretary of State refers an Assembly Act to the Judicial Committee? To whom is he responsible and accountable? The answer is simply that he is accountable to this House.
The right hon. Gentleman knows the technique he must adopt. He must table a motion of censure on the Secretary of State, or a motion to reduce his salary by some motional sum. In other words, he must seek to force the Secretary of State to resign or change his mind. At that point the issue has become political, but it has done so within terms which we understand here and which are confined within this Chamber on a political issue. It will be a party political issue in this Chamber because one party does not share the view of the other major party. In this instance I am talking of the United Kingdom authorities and not of sectional interests which represent only one part.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Secretary of State is not accountable. By this system he is more accountable in the normal political sense than if he had to come here repeatedly and lay measures before this House. That

would become a bone of political contention in this House, and even a bone of Scottish political contention in this House, rather than a bone of United Kingdom contention.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has lectured in Strathclyde and, as a former Minister, he understands these matters. Does his experience lead him to believe that there is any way in which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would not be involved in political contention?

Mr. Fowler: I shall come to that matter a little later. I wish to deal with one other point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby, who spoke of Parliament settling issues between the Assembly and the Government. It seems to me that we are not discussing disputes involving the Government and the Scottish Assembly but trying to find a means, albeit not a completely satisfactory means, of settling what is essentially a judicial question. That is why I want to deal with the other alternatives.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that it might be possible to use the ordinary courts in this country rather than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Had he said "the courts of the United Kingdom" I should have known more or less what he meant. But he said "the courts of this country", and that is the first difficulty with that proposal. Which country did he mean—England or Scotland?
It is possible to imagine a case in which either set of courts could be used. He will say that they come together, at least in certain respects—not in all judicial functions but in some—at the level of the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman's proposal therefore boils down to the use of the House of Lords rather than other courts. If this matter were to be settled in the English courts, that would become a bone of fierce political contention in Scotland. If it were settled in the Scottish courts, the English interests would never accept that Scottish courts were the best means of judging such disputes, or that they could do so without bias.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I broadly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. He may be interested to recall that in the 1920


Government of Ireland Act the court of appeal—that is, the one distinct from the provisions in Section 51—was the High Court of Appeal for Ireland.

Mr. Fowler: I accept that entirely and it would be possible to devise mechanisms for the use of the Scottish courts with the House of Lords giving ultimate judgment.
However, there is another weakness. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing the use of the courts after the passage of the Act. If one permits that, one permits the use of the courts. That can happen in any event, because there may be disputes after any length of time over the validity of the interpretation of a particular provision of an Act of Parliament. We can have uncertainty in the law in England, too. Indeed, the prime manifestation of that was the Tameside judgment, which overturned what everybody had believed to be the law—much to my chargrin, because I was heavily involved —after no less than 32 years.
However, that uncertainty becomes the greater if there is no regular means of establishing the way the Act of a minor assembly—I am not attempting to be parochial about the Scottish Assembly and use the word in a legal sense—is within the legal competence of that Assembly before the Act is applied. If we do not have such a procedure we shall find many hard cases where an Act of an Assembly is applied, perhaps to the pecuniary disadvantage of individuals, and then, years later, it may be ruled through the normal judicial process that that Act was ultra vires. We must find means of obtaining a ruling before a Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Not only do we have the opportunity of obtaining a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before an Assembly Bill becomes an Act, but provision is made in the Bill for post-legislative attack on Assembly Acts, which could create tremendous uncertainty.

Mr. Fowler: I am perfectly well aware of that. The point that I am making is that if one simply has the normal situation in which the courts may at any point rule on the interpretation of an Act and we also have a provision that the courts could decide that a particular Act was

beyond the competence of the Assembly, there would be even greater uncertainty. One way of removing a substantial amount of the uncertainty is to obtain a judicial view before a Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. George Cunningham: Clause 18(4) says:
The validity of any proceedings leading to the enactment of a Scottish Assembly Act shall not be called in question in any legal proceedings.
Would not that include the kind of review by the courts to which my hon. Friend is now referring?

Mr. Fowler: No. We are here talking about legal competence, not proceedings leading up to the passage of an Act.
I turn to the possibility of using the House of Lords. The great danger with that is that in Scotland, at any rate, a decision of the House of Lords—although it may be perfectly well understood here as a legal matter—might be seen as a decision that was not essentially judicial but political. It could be seen as a decision of part of the English Parliament. I therefore dislike the notion that we should use the House of Lords.
I agree entirely that to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, in essence, to use the same body as the House of Lords—that is, the Law Lords —provided we exclude the ex-politicians who do not have a legal background and who are technically members of the Judicial Committee but who are not called upon to sit on it. I should prefer that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was used, in spite of its use in connection with the colonies and Dominions in the past.
Will this still not be seen as a political decision? The answer is that any decision ruling that an Act of the Scottish Assembly was ultra vires would inevitably be seen in Scotland, in certain circumstances, as a political decision or as one with political overtones. I see no means of evading that.
If there were—heaven forfend—an SNP majority in the Assembly and if an Act were overturned by the Judicial Committee, I do not doubt for one second that the SNP would use the argument that this was an English political decision. We must live with that. Our task now is to


minimise the danger. That danger cannot be eradicated and the clause as it stands is the best means that we can find of minimising the danger for as long as there is a specific Scotland Bill, taking us along the road to what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) called semi-federalism and what I call semi-devolution.
Granted that weakness, we must make the best of a bad job and the words in the Bill will help the Government to do that.

Mr. Stokes: We have just listened to a speech of remarkable honesty. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) pointed out many of the grave constitutional problems that are inherent in the Bill and that come up as we examine it daily, clause by clause.
This afternoon we are again considering the practical difficulties in dealing with legislation of an Assembly, to ensure that legislation passed by that Assembly will not wreck the constitution of the United Kingdom. As always, we are indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for pointing out so clearly the dangers of introducing into our political and constitutional life a written constitution for one part without a supreme court—a sort of half-botched going federal. As we discuss the Bill clause by clause we come up against these inherent difficulties that no one so far has solved. As the debates go on and are reported as widely as they have been throughout the country, people will increasingly come to realise what great dangers the Bill poses to our constitutional life in the United Kingdom.
I make no secret of my position. I do not want an Assembly of any kind in Scotland or in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Budgen: Or a directly-elected one in Europe.

Mr. Stokes: I quite agree.
I think that it will be found that to have an Assembly in a unitary State, particularly where the main country, the one with four-fifths of the population, does not have an Assembly, will be the cause of endless problems, confusions and conflicts. However, as the clause and the

amendments are before us, the least we can do is to try to minimise the mess and muddle.
The clause places an almost impossible burden on the Secretary of State, subject as he will be to every kind of political pressure, if not blackmail. What a poisoned chalice this post will prove to be to the unfortunate holder!
I should have preferred the amendment to say that matters of problem and conflict should be referred in the ordinary way to the ordinary courts of the land, but, clearly, the Government have no intention of doing that. Therefore, unfortunately, we can no longer regard that as a possible alternative. That being so, we are left only with the choice of removing the important task of scrutiny to this House, so that we can if possible reduce the conflict to a minimum and ensure that the House is fully apprised of all the Bills that the Assembly has passed or is trying to pass.
That will have the further advantage of demonstrating to everybody in the United Kingdom that this House is still sovereign and cannot be undermined by a subordinate Assembly. It will underline that legislation by the Scottish Assembly will necessarily be secondary legislation.
Perhaps I may add, without wishing to be thought frivolous, that this scrutiny will give the 71 Scottish Members who remain here something to do. Deprived of contact with the mainstream of Scottish life, they would at least be able to pore over the Scottish Assembly Bills, and that might keep them happy for part of their miserable existence here.
When we consider the content of the Bills, the mind starts to boggle. I believe that the Members of the Scottish Assembly will vie with one another to show their determination to be as Scottish and as separate from the United Kingdom as they can. They will be trying to stretch and strain their devolved rights to the utmost of their power. The task of controlling them would be impossible for the Secretary of State and highly unsuitable, for the reasons we have heard this afternoon, for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Therefore, we are left only with the Commons of the United Kingdom who should have this vital rôle.
I have one much more serious worry, so serious that I must measure my words most carefully. This is a wholly new point. What will be the effect of the clause on the Royal Prerogative—nay, more important still, how will it affect the position of the Monarch herself? Does anyone present believe that if the Judicial Committee considered a specific Bill and advised Her Majesty that it was beyond the Assembly's competence, and therefore should not be passed into law, the Scottish National Party would take that decision lying down? Can we not imagine that it might suit its book to rail against not only the Judicial Committee but, in the last resort, against the monarchy?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Speaking in Westminster Hall on 4th May 1977, the Queen said
I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Does not the hon. Gentleman think that she has some right in these very special circumstances to be consulted about some of these things?

The First Deputy Chairman: I had occasion yesterday to give a ruling that references to the Queen's opinions, whatever they were, were not in order. I repeat that ruling for the benefit of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) seems to me to be going along a road where he will convert all the members of the Scottish National Party into revolutionaries.

Mr. Stokes: I shall not comment on the political point that you have just made, Sir Myer.
Without wishing to offend the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whose interruptions have been such a notable feature of these debates—and I do not object to them—I must tell him that I had thought of quoting Her Majesty's speech on the occasion to which he referred, but, for the very reasons that you gave, Sir Myer, I decided that it would be improper to do so. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not prove to be more royalist than I am.
I warn the Committee that I would not put it past the members of the SNP—ruthless and opportunist as they are and deter-

mined to stop at nothing to gain their end of separation and independence—in the last resort to attack the monarchy.

Mr. Eric S. Helfer: I am sad that neither my right hon. Friend the Lord President nor anyone else from the Cabinet is present to hear these discussions, because they are of the greatest importance. We are talking about the future of this country as a united State, and the arguments should be heard. It is most regrettable that most Labour Members have obviously written the Bill off and decided that it is of no consequence, but it is of great consequence. The more I listen to the debates, the more I am sure that the people will become totally confused.
This afternoon we have heard some erudite contributions, particularly from those who understand the law. I am not a lawyer. I am just a simple, ordinary, working-class chap who happens to have been elected to the House of Commons. It is from the simple, ordinary, working-class chap's point of view that I want to look at the matter. The more I listen to the debate on the clause, the more I see that it goes to the very heart of the whole question. We are discussing the central issue of the Bill.
The Assembly may pass legislation that is not liked by the Government of the day, whoever they are. If the Secretary of State decides that he is not happy about it, or if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council looks at it, that is an immediate recipe for conflict. There is bound to be discussion and argument.
I agree with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) that the 71 Members from Scotland, if they are still sitting here, will come into their own, because they will be under immense pressure from their constituencies to support Assembly legislation. There will be a great argument. The legislation will not be discussed in this House unless the amendment is accepted, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. Whatever happened, and whoever decided that it was not acceptable, the so-called English Parliament would be the villain of the piece. In that situation there would be even greater cries on the part of the Scottish nationalists for independence. That would be disastrous. I cannot think of anything worse.
It upsets me that this debate can proceed with hardly anyone listening to it. I can understand why Members take the view that they will not remain in the Chamber: they are bored with the Bill; they do not like it; they think that it is an awful business anyway. However, I wish that they would listen. If they listened, they would come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a lot of nonsense. The more I listen, the more I take the view that we cannot possibly go along with the rôle that is to be given to the Judicial Committee.
I am not prepared to divulge any names, but I understand that none of the members of the Committee has been consulted. No one has been asked for his opinion. It may be that the Committee does not want to make these decisions. If we are to ask people to make such important decisions, it is important that at least they should be asked. Their opinion should be sought. I should like to know their opinion. I should like an answer from the Judicial Committee.
The important question is whether we should elevate the Judicial Committee so that it becomes a supreme court. Are we beginning to have a written constitution? What is the judges' rôle in our political system? We have always argued—no one more strongly than my right hon. Friend the Lord President—that the judges should interpret the law and not make it. I agree with my right hon. Friend. Over the years many people in the Labour movement have argued that the judges have tended to make the law and that we in the House of Commons have had to put matters right, to restore what was before. In some cases the judges have gone beyond interpretation. There has been conflict. However, it seems that we are now to elevate a body to a position in which it will not merely interpret the law, but, in a sense, make the law. That is a serious development.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that if we are talking in terms of a federal system— I can understand the argument for such a system—we should have some sort of supreme body, such as a supreme court. However, I do not think that we need a supreme court. A federal parliament could make the decision. There would have to be some supreme body, of course, to make decisions for the whole of the

federation. That is a half-federal position. I use the phrase that my Dad used to use in the old days, it is neither one thing nor the other—in fact, he had a much better phrase, but I cannot use it in the Chamber.
There is nothing worse than a situation that is neither one thing nor the other. That is the worst of all possible worlds. If we had a federal system, that would be one thing. Even if we had regional government throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), who is demanding regional government in England, that I do not hear great demand for that—it would be something.
However, the last thing that we want is another tier of government. We have too much damned government now. We do not want all these tiers of local government and regional government. We have far too much government. In a sense we are over-governed. We do not need this bureaucratic structure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Opposition Members are shouting in support, but they are the very people who brought it in. Labour Members argued against it. It is the Conservatives who are responsible. However, having brought it in, they do not like it: fair enough, but they should not have brought it in in the first place. If they had not done so, we should not be in in this situation.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not only a matter of regional government. To make the proposed system work there would have to be subordinate Parliaments in places such as Liverpool.

Mr. Heffer: I entirely agree. I only wish that we could find oil in the Irish Sea. If we could find it, that would solve all our problems. If it were found, the Scottish demand for independence would disappear in one day, especially if we found a great quantity. The Scots would be happy to remain with the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of such a find. Oil is one of the problems. That is where the Scottish Nationalists have fastened their gaze in looking to the future of Scotland.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that my hon. Friend will not lose sight of the fact that a large percentage of


the oil—about 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. —lies off Shetland and that Shetland wants to remain firmly within the United Kingdom, and possibly would walk out of the Assembly if it is formed in Scotland.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are getting away from the main purpose of Clause 20. We are not on Second Reading. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) appreciates that, but I understand that he is about to conclude his speech.

Mr. Heffer: You are quite right, Sir Myer. I do not want to go beyond the terms of the clause.
I do not want to see the Judicial Committee elevated to some sort of supreme court. However, that is what is likely to happen if we allow the clause to go through unopposed. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy for the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
Whether the decisions are made by the Secretary of State or the Judicial Committee, in the end they will be political decisions. That cannot be avoided. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States makes political decisions. One of the most momentous decisions that it ever made was on race. It was a fantastic decision. No one thought that that court would ultimately come to such a decision. However, it was a political decision. It was a judicial decision in that it was made by judges, but there is no question but that it was a political decision.
Should we leave these matters to a small number of people in the first analysis, or in the last analysis should a wider body of elected people make the decisions? If we are to have the Bill, and if this sort of clause is to become a section in the Act, it would be far better to make provision for a majority of elected people to decide than to make provision for judges. If it is the judges who are to decide, we shall always be arguing that they have made the wrong decision. If we make a wrong decision, we make it as elected representatives, and it is not made by a small group.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Jo Grimond: I must apologise to the right hon.

Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for being absent when he addressed the Committee. Unfortunately, I was called out of the Chamber. However, the amendment is extremely clear and as I read it I have considerable sympathy for it.
I look at the situation as it will strike not this Parliament, not the Scottish Assembly, not the local authorities and not the lawyers and others who understand what vires may or may not mean, but from the point of view of the ordinary people of Scotland. In a year or two, if this measure is enacted and others follow, the ordinary people of Scotland will be in considerable confusion about the source of important regulations and legislation that affect their lives. Some of them might come from Brussels, from London or Edinburgh. It is incumbent on this House at least to make clear what are its responsibilities for enactments which will certainly rule the lives of the people in Scotland.
Secondly, people want to know to whom they can complain. They want to have the right to influence legislation before it is passed and to complain about it afterwards. It is not satisfactory, in these areas where conflict might arise, that the decision whether prima facie there is a conflict should rest entirely with the Secretary of State.
The amendment leaves the ultimate decision not to Parliament but to the Privy Council. That is right. I am terrified that Parliament, by a majority of votes, should make a decision on such a matter. The right hon. Member for Crosby says that Parliament could discuss a particular matter and, if it so determines, insist on a controversial Bill being submitted to the Privy Council.
One of the dangers is, not that the Secretary of State will refer too many Bills to the Privy Council but that he may not refer enough. For example, if he is a member of the party with the majority in the Assembly he might allow Bills to slip through. Perhaps the decision should be taken by a Law Officer and not the Secretary of State.
The amendment states
No Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly shall be enacted until it shall have been considered by both Houses of Parliament.
I cannot believe that that is necessary. I should have thought that we could work


out a procedure for a number of people to look at a Bill and for them to refer it for debate only if a point of substance is discovered.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman was not here earlier when I made that point. We have a process to deal with subordinate legislation and all items are not brought to the Chamber.

Mr. Grimond: I apologise for being absent earlier in the debate.
Although this Bill is an improvement on the original, there are still immense, grey areas. When it is passed we shall find that situations will arise which are not exactly covered by the Bill. The Government do not want to spell out all the things that are reserved for Westminster under the Bill. They would rather do it the other way round by indicating what is devolved.
In my new clause I try to spell out many matters that concern my constituents. They would be happier if they were written down. It may not be necessary to do that for lawyers, but my constituents are ordinary people who have to live with the legislation. We should have debates in the House on matters about which there is genuine controversy whether they are within the power of the Assembly.
I do not know whether the judiciary will receive sufficient guidance. Often the judiciary provides valuable indications of the way that Parliament is thinking and raises new points that can be turned into legislation. Certain things will be referred to the Privy Council, but it will be difficult to know the answer from a judicial point of view.
I should welcome further discussion on the grey areas. I should like to see the Government spell out more clearly in the Bill some of the matters which are of great importance to my constituents and other people so that the ordinary person, who does not understand about vires and reserve powers, has a clearer idea about under whose authority he will come when the Bill is passed.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Some of those whose job it is in the Press to write about our debates have craftily put it about that this debate is boring. They have therefore absolved themselves from attending. This afternoon's debate

has been of exceptional interest and importance. It has been marked by a series of remarkable speeches.
Although I do not agree with the major conclusions of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the point that he made about over-government was received with sympathy by the Committee. Some of us are rejoicing that, on this side of heaven, the hon. Member has discovered that we can have too much government.
We should not be discussing such enormously complicated constitutional issues without the attendance of the Law Officers and in the absence of the Leader of the House. I have a great respect for the Minister of State. He has done his rather unhappy job well, but there are times when we are entitled to ask that a Law Officer should be here. It is odd that the Lord President, who is normally assiduous in his attendance, should apparently have abandoned this Bill completely.
I support the principles that are set out in Amendment No. 182. I share the view that we are putting far too much on the Secretary of State in terms of quasi-judicial decisions.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) referred to the Tameside case. I may be biased on that issue, but leaving aside the merits whether Tameside should have the right to have the type of education that it wants, the Secretary of State should not have unlimited powers to tell people how Acts of Parliament are to be operated.
We have seen an acceleration in the power of the Executive. The amendment attempts to diminish slightly the power of the Secretary of State. If one goes back to earlier this afternoon one can see that the idea that Secretaries of State are fully accountable does not work in practice. It is true that they can be called before Parliament and face motions to reduce their salaries, but reduction does not take place. When it comes to the debate, the three-line Whips are on and the matter goes out of the window.
The controversial decision by the Home Secretary about the rights of immigrants shows how an important decision can be made by a Minister who is supposed to be accountable to the House. In reality


that accountability is unlikely to mean much.
I welcome the suggestion that the House of Commons, rather than the Secretary of State, should determine whether these issues should go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby explained how it is possible for that to be done. As he said, it is done with European legislation, and the same pattern should be applied in this case.
We are entitled to an explanation of what the words "of opinion" mean in practice. Do they imply that the Secretary of State has any discretion? Do they mean that any element of judgment comes into this? Will the Secretary of State be allowed any leeway to make up his own mind? Will he be allowed to apply anything but the strictest legal interpretation when deciding whether something is intra vires or ultra vires? We need an explanation from precedent of how the words "of opinion" work out in practice.
We should like an answer to a question which has been touched upon already. It may be answered in the Bill but I cannot discover it. If the Government scheme goes through, will it still be possible in subsequent actions before the courts to raise the question of vires? Or is it the Government's intention that the question of the vires of the Assembly can be raised only through the mechanism which is set out in Clause 20? There has been some reference to this. I am not clear on it, and it is important that we should have a categorical statement from the Minister whether, if the procedure set out in Clause 20 is not applied, there is no hope thereafter of anyone challenging the rightness or the wrongness of the Assembly to legislate on a particular matter.
I come to the question of which court should deal with these matters. We have had an interesting debate. I have learnt a lot of things this afternoon about the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think that the Judicial Committee is probably not, in an ideal world, the most appropriate body for handling this.
Maybe the realities are that we have to choose the Judicial Committee, but as I have listened to the arguments I have realised that the notion that this is a kind

of quasi-colonial court has some force and that it would be better to go straight for a court which does not have that particular connotation and which does not have among its theoretical potential members the sort of former Ministers that we have heard described as being members of the Judicial Committee. I know that Lord Glenamara and so forth would be unlikely to be called to serve on the Judicial Committee, but it would be better if it were made clear that this was a matter for genuine judges and no one else.
Therefore, I feel that it at all possible we should move towards the House of Lords as the supreme court, rather than go for the Judicial Committee. However, I recognise that there is some scope for political bickering and argument if the House of Lords is chosen, because it might be interpreted as being the House of Lords in its political rather than its strictly judicial capacity.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Does the Judicial Committee not have one advantage over the House of Lords, which is that the House of Lords acting simply as an appeals committee—that is to say the Law Lords—will contain English and Scottish judges, whereas the Judicial Committee can and very often does contain distinguished Australian, New Zealand and other Com-vires of the Bill in which feelings monwealth judges? In a dispute as to the between England and Scotland might be strong, that could prove to be a considerable advantage.

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point. My theoretical answer to this is that neither of these bodies is the correct one and that we are getting to the stage where we have to face up to the need for a constitutional court if we are to have this sort of measure on the statute book, although I should prefer not to have it. But if we are to have this and other indications of constitutional change, including our membership of the Common Market, the notion that we can go on without some kind of clear-cut constitutional court will become untenable.
I do not agree with those who say that these decisions should be seen strictly in a political light. I do not think that that is possible. As hon. Members have


pointed out, the House would not often come to these questions in anything remotely resembling a reasonably nonpartisan frame of mind. These must be matters of law, as opposed to matters of political battle, and if they are we shall sooner or later have to set up a proper court to deal with them.
I believe that, given our set of circumstances and given that in this Bill we shall provide for a new kind of constitutional court, the amendment moved by my hon. Friend makes a great deal of sense.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said at the beginning of his speech that this clause went right to the heart of the Bill. He was right. What is more, the more one listens to debates on amendments, the more one finds out that every clause in this Bill goes to the heart of the Bill.
Every time we open the Bill, out springs some horrible new monster. Every time we open the Bill we come upon some fresh problem that nobody had thought of before. We have had the West Lothian question, and the Government have been unable to answer it. We have had the question which will interest the hon. Member for Walton concerning the disadvantage that arises to one part of the United Kingdom from giving an advantage to another part. The more one gives to Scotland, the less there is available for Merseyside.
Yesterday the extraordinary situation arose in which we were told that the Scottish Assembly could legislate for parts of England. What the Scottish nationalists would say if the GLC were given the power to legislate for Scotland I dread to think, but that is the corollary.
Every day some horrible new monster jumps out. Yesterday's monster was particularly freakish. Yet here again today we have another irreducible problem. It is inevitable that conflicts will arise about the vires of Bills between Edinburgh and Westminster. These will not be gentle little matters that do not affect anybody. By their very nature they will be controversial matters which will stir up passions in Scotland and Westminster.
The idea that this can be easily settled by the Secretary of State, as the Govern-

ment currently suggest, or by some Judicial Committee, as the amendment suggests, seems to me to fly in the face of political common sense. There is no way that a majority party in Scotland would accept that it could pass a controversial measure and then find it vetoed by the Secretary of State or the Judicial Committee. There would be no way of avoiding the stirring up of the maximum political discord out of this issue.
So, firstly, the maximum political discord will arise through its own dynamic qualities, and, secondly, the miserable SNP will exist solely to foment that discord and stoke the fires of controversy. If they have anything to do with it, the SNP Members will put forward Bills simply to cause this sort of discord. To believe that the SNP would accept the disagreement of the Secretary of State or would agree to the rejection of Bills by a gang of people in the House of Lords is to ignore the political realities in Scotland. Here again we have a positive incitement to constitutional conflict.
In a sense, we in this House are creating the weapons by which this House can be destroyed. We are putting a weapon in the hands of those who feel that their whole raison d'être is to destroy this House and the unity of the United Kingdom. Of course it is not only in Scotland that the seeds of discord will be sown. Hon. Members who represent London constituencies could not believe last night that we were actually legislating that the Scottish Assembly could pass laws to affect people in London, that Members could pass laws to cover areas that they did not represent. So people in London will be fed up with the procedure whereby Scottish MPs will be telling London how it must run its education, housing, roads and so on.
Let us consider the West Lothian question. If the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) knows the answer to that question I shall give way to him now. He stays in his place and the House may draw its own conclusions. There is no answer—

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) stays in his seat because the question is out of order.

Mr. Sproat: I wish that I had as much faith in the good sense of the hon. Member for Inverness as you have, Sir Myer. However, I will depart from that.
I do not believe, in short, that political questions should be settled by anyone but elected politicians. That is what we are here to do. Once we drag in the lawyers, as we have seen with the Industrial Relations Act, however well meaning the judges may be, and however above politics they may think they are, there are difficulties, because we cannot ask the judges to make political decisions. Well, we can, but we should not do it.
As so often in these debates, we are again indebted to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for saying the obvious. I think it was General de Gaulle who said that almost the most valuable quality in a politician is the ability to see the obvious. The hon. Gentleman indicated to us who the members of the Judicial Committee might be. We heard some interesting names read out. There was Lord Glenamara, who in a previous incarnation was Mr. Ted Short, one of the most ruthlessly insensitive—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not in order to attack the personalities of the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise. I will draw the attention of the Committee to only two other members of the Judicial Committee, and this Committee can draw its own conclusions. We have the noble Lord, Lord Home—a splendid man. I am not saying that I disagree with him but I ask the House to reflect on his part in all this. I have already referred to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. Then we have the amazing Lord Kilbrandon, about whom—perhaps unfortunately—no more can be said. I hope that hon. Members will read Monday's Scotsman if they want to see the unbiased view of Lord Kilbrandon in these matters. In short, I do not believe that lawyers should ever be asked to make political decisions. Political decisions should be made by politicians who are elected to do so.
The hon. Member for Walton asked earlier whether the Judicial Committee had been consulted on whether it wants to do this job. He asked what the Judicial Committee thinks about it. Perhaps

the members of that Committee do not want to do it. I noticed at the time, if I was lip-reading correctly, that the Minister of State said "Too bad." Indeed, he said it twice.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Gentleman ought to be much fairer than that. I said nothing of the kind and implied nothing of the kind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speedily withdraw his remark.

Mr. Sproat: I can only say that that is what I thought the Minister of State said. If he did not say it, I withdraw my remark. It would have been within the sight and earshot of other hon. Members. No doubt the Minister of State will tell us whether he has consulted the Judicial Committee and, if so, what the Judicial Committee said. I withdraw my remark on the Minister's absolute assurance that he neither whispered it, mouthed it nor said it.
I do not think that we should elevate the Judicial Committee into some sort of supreme court. We should certainly not do it by the back door in an amendment such as this. In any case, as a general principle, we should always require political decisions to be made not by lawyers, however distinguished, but by elected politicians.

Mr. Raison: The question, surely, is whether a particular action is within the terms of an Act of Parliament, and that would seem to be a judicial rather than a political decision.

Mr. Sproat: Fair enough, but it is in fact a political decision, although it may be dressed up as a judicial decision. I will go on to qualify that in a moment. The hon. Member for Walton talked about the Supreme Court having made a judicial decision about race. He said that it was judicial because it was made by judges. He was quite right, and in that sense I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that this would be a judicial decision. But suppose that a Scottish Assembly has said that it wants to do a certain thing about housing or schools and the judges say, on a purely technical legal point, that the Scottish Assembly cannot do it. There is then no way for it not to become a political issue in Scotland. I do not


doubt that the judges would consider it in a judicial way, but it would become a political issue. This would involve dragging the law into politics, and that is something that we should not do.

Mr. Tim Renton: Following the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), I suggest that the real answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), in his interjection, is this: every time an Act passed by a Scottish Assembly is questioned in Westminster, by that very fact of questioning it will become a political matter. It is perhaps almost immaterial whether the matter in question lay within the competence of the Assembly or otherwise. Whether the questioning is done immediately by the Judicial Committee, on the instruction of the Secretary of State, or whether the Act is first sieved by this House of Commons, is again almost immaterial. The main factor is that every time we in Westminster query an Act which has been passed in Edinburgh and ask whether it is within the Assembly's competence, that will be interpreted in Edinburgh as a political decision, a political act, on our part.
It is in that context, I suggest, that we have to read Clause 20 and the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). As so many hon. Members have said, Clause 20 clearly lies at the heart of the Bill. It already anticipates conflict between Westminster and Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend is therefore asking how that conflict, when it arises, will be decided and who will take the initiative. I think that my right hon. Friend, in essence, was trying to put Parliament in this context in the place of the Secretary of State and, at the same time, to reassert the supremacy of this Parliament of the United Kingdom in relation to any Acts of the Assembly. I strongly support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend.
There was reference to the poison chalice of the Secretary of State for Scotland, if it is he who is to take these decisions. I believe that it is more than that. I believe that it would be an intolerable burden for him, for in the first instance, as envisaged in Clause 20, he has to take the decision whether to refer

an Act to the Judicial Committee. That would be bad enough, but under Clause 20(1)(b), if the Secretary of State decides that the Bill is not compatible with EEC obligations, his decision is then final and irrevocable. He simply decides that he will not submit the Bill to Her Majesty in Council for approval. He does not take any second opinion. He does not go to any judges or do anything else at all. He just takes the decision that the Bill is not compatible with our EEC obligations, and stops the buck totally at that point.
Let us suppose that there is a Tory majority in the Scottish Assembly and that legislation is passed concerning the selling of council houses. Suppose, further, that this is viewed as involving a fiscal element. A Scottish Secretary of State would then decide that the Bill was not within the competence of the Assembly. Clearly, at that stage he would be involving himself in a political decision. If it were an EEC matter, it would not involve the Judicial Committee at all, and he would take the decision himself. I believe that he would be taking on an intolerable burden and would be fomenting and creating arguments between Westminster and Edinburgh.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said how difficult it would be for the Judicial Committee to decide. How true that is. As hon. Members of the Committee have often said, the danger is that if the Judicial Committee cannot reach a decision the judiciary itself will be brought into disrepute. We would therefore be moving on from the inevitable conflict between Westminster and Edinburgh, which many of us see arising, and involving the judiciary in that inevitable conflict that will follow as a result of this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Last night we discussed an amendment, again moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, which sought to omit paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I have no doubt that many of us were sorry that that amendment was lost. I believe that the potential for dispute as a result of that paragraph remaining in the Bill is very much greater than it was before. That paragraph means that provisions are within the legislative competence of the Assembly if those provisions are necessary or expedient for


making other provisions effective which are prima facie within the competence of the Assembly.
When winding up last night the Minister of State kept on referring to these provisions as being "minor" provisions. He never made it plain to any of us how he could justify the use of the word "minor". Since we are back on the same subject this afternoon—the question of the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly and the potential of this Parliament to challenge that competence— I hope that he will find time to explain why he was so ready to dismiss that paragraph in Schedule 2 as unimportant.
My final point is that in that same speech the Minister referred to some hon. Members, I think myself included, who in his view were sufficiently foolish to question devolution to the Scottish Assembly. He referred to us very contemptuously as Bourbons. Perhaps the Minister saw himself as Talleyrand and thought of the phrase about forgetting nothing and learning nothing.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. Renton: The Minister will have a chance to put forward his own views in a moment. Let me remind him of Matthew Prior's epitaph, which said:
Nobles and heralds, by your leave, Here lies what once was Matthew Prior; The son of Adam and of Eve, Can Bourbon or Nassau go higher?
I believe that with regard to this Bill we are all involved and that we are all British Matthew Priors. We are all sons of Macadam.
I do not believe that the Minister has any right, as he imputed last night, to query whether English Members of Parliament should get up in this Committee and question the devolution of responsibility and power to a Scottish Assembly. We are all involved in seeing that the unity of the United Kingdom remains intact.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. Renton: I tried to get up three times during the Minister's speech and he never gave way. He gave way to Scottish Members, but although I tried to get in on the debate he never gave way to me. I shall now take my chance.
We are all involved in seeing that the unity of the United Kingdom remains intact. It is not just because we have—as I have in my constituency—many Scots living there who still regard Scotland as their home. Although they have lived all their lives in England, they have always believed that they could go to work or retire in a Scotland that was part of the United Kingdom. They are now worried at the threat of the separation of Scotland from England.
It is not just that. It is, I believe, that we have a prime duty in this Parliament at Westminster to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. I hope, therefore, that in future the Minister will not deride—with all the arrogance of an Edinburgh lawyer— the wishes of English Members of Parliament such as myself who want to see the United Kingdom remain intact.

Mr. Gow: If a Government are able to submit to the House of Commons this Scotland Bill, and if the same Government are proposing to drive the Bill through Parliament under a guillotine, how can we have any confidence that that Government will not also rig the composition of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
It is not impossible that this Government—if the Secretary of State were an honest man and wished to certify that he was of the opinion that a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly was not within the legislative competence of the Assembly —would contrive to pack the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council so that it might be disposed to give a verdict favourable to the Government.
Of course, the Minister of State has said "No, we are so entitled to the confidence of the House that to make such a suggestion is unreasonable". But I shall make that suggestion. I do not believe that it is beyond the machinations of this Government to appoint to the Judicial Committee the Chairman of Cable and Wireless Ltd, the Lord President of the Council and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon.
What is so extraordinary about the proposals in Clause 20 is that there must first be a decision to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee under subsection either (1)(a) or (1)(b). That means a


political decision of the Secretary of State. We cannot get near the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council unless the Secretary of State for Scotland refers the dispute to the Judicial Committee. That is the only situation in which we can get there.
I think it is quite wrong to refer a dispute of this kind to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is a body of men who in many ways are very distinguished. But it contains among its number several people whose competence to judge on matters of this kind is very limited indeed.
If we are to have a referee in this matter I would much prefer that it should be referred to a High Court judge and then go on appeal to the Court of Appeal and, finally, on appeal to another place. That, after all, is the procedure that we have adopted on issues such as Thameside where it was shown that the Minister was acting far beyond his powers. That was the procedure we used for the famous television licence case when it was shown that the Home Secretary was acting gravely in breach of his powers. That was the procedure followed in the case of a licence to fly aircraft over the Atlantic, where it was shown that the Secretary of State for Trade had greatly exceeded his powers.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not a matter of packing the Judicial Committee with Government appointments but rather the effect of referring such a case to a High Court judge and then to the House of Lords. Just think how that would be used by politicians in whose interests it was to attack decisions that did not go their way.

Mr. Gow: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's point. But, of course, members of the Judicial Committee are not all peers. The Lord President of the Council is himself a member of the Judicial Committee, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who is a former Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Dalyell: I have made this point on two occasions and I do so for a third lime. It is exceedingly unsatisfactory that there has not been a statement from a Law Officer as to what the Judicial Committee itself thinks about the task that it has been given. We want to know what the judges themselves think. We are told

that the Judicial Committee has been informed, and we want to know what it has said. A judge who is put in this position must realise that bringing these matters into the sphere of political decision-making could bring into disrepute the decisions of the High Court.

Mr. Gow: I have protested more than once at the absence of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and it would be courteous to welcome back the Lord Advocate to our proceedings. I hope very much that the Minister of State will reply or that we shall have an intervention from that passionate prodevolutionist, the Lord Advocate, and that he will address himself to an issue that has been raised again and again during the debate.
Whatever may have been the muttered comments of the Minister of State which were heard by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), we have been given the impression that there has been a look, nod, wink or some kind of communication between the Government and those distinguished gentlemen who form the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If discussions have taken place between the Attorney-General and the Privy Council Office and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—it would be natural if there had been discussions because they have headquarters in the same building, presided over by that well-known constitutionalist the Lord President of the Council—I am sure that the Minister of State will want to reassure us and take the Committee into his confidence on the Judicial Committee's view on having this new burden placed upon it.
As we debate, sadly, only some of these clauses—because of the guillotine —we find recurring again and again not just the prospect but the absolute certainty of continuing and continuous conflict between the Secretary of State and the Assembly and between the House and the Assembly. That is why this clause has been put here. It is an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable and to solve the insoluble, and it is a pretty bad attempt. If the clause goes unamended, the Minister of State knows full well that we shall have all the drama of the Secretary of State initially taking a political decision, namely whether to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the


Privy Council. Then we shall have the Privy Council itself taking a quasi-political and quasi-judicial decision and we shall have continuing conflicts concerning what should be the supreme authority of the House of Commons and challenges to that authority by those representing the Scottish National Party.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Budgen: I wish to deal only with a very narrow point concerning the use of the system of declaring secondary legislation to be ultra vires, but everything I say will illustrate the proposition that there are hitherto unrecognised and great advantages in the supremacy of a sovereign Parliament. For the present, the doctrine of ultra vires is most seen where a citizen wishes to challenge the legality of secondary or delegated legislation. It is not open to the citizen to argue that primary legislation which is properly on the statute book is outside the competence of Parliament. It is open to the citizen only to argue that the Minister, in carrying out his delegated responsibilities, has failed to confine himself within the discretion granted to him by primary legislation.
The disadvantages of the procedure of ultra vires are obvious. When, for instance, an individual says in planning matters that a land use classes order is illegal, he may be one of 10,000 people against whom that legislation has been put. He may be the last of the 10,000, but the rest will have already conformed to the conditions of that delegated legislation, and, should he succeed in showing that the delegated legislation is ultra vires, there would be a substantial administrative difficulty in doing justice to those who have already conformed to what is, in fact, an illegal piece of delegated legislation.
What will happen if the House allows this piece of legislation through? The proposals are that the Scottish Assembly should have the power to legislate not over minor matters, matters of planning detail or mere matters of minor importance in respect of housing legislation. Schedule 4 makes clear that important issues of principle will be decided upon by the legislature in Edinburgh.
What happens then? We find that it will be sieved in some way by the Secre-

tary of State and he will decide by a purely political decision whether it conforms to the law. He will decide by a purely political decision whether the legislation has gone further than is allowed by the Scotland Bill.
What happens if, after the Bill reaches the statute book, an individual citizen attempts to argue before the courts that an Act passed by the Scottish Assembly is ultra vires? The administrative difficulties will be enormous. What happens if, after the Scottish Assembly has passed legislation, the Queen has given her assent and, let us say, legislation has been in force for a year, when along comes Fred Smith from Galashiels and succeeds in showing that this piece of legislation cannot be passed within the discretion that is allowed to the Scottish Assembly as granted by the Scotland Act of 1978? Then the injustice done to those who have already conformed to the illegal legislation will be enormous.
We see once again the advantages of having a sovereign and supreme single Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom. This proposal will not give to the individual citizen the certainty and justice that comes from a single supreme Parliament, nor will it give him the right that ought to come from a fully federal system. He will have the worst of all worlds.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, answer the following question? If an Act of the Assembly has been passed as intra vires by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will it still be open to the citizen to challenge the vires of the Assembly Act in litigation in which his rights are involved in relation to an Assembly Act?

Mr. Budgen: That is very much a question for those who are putting forward this legislation to explain to the House. We have had no proper explanation of this. If it be that the citizen does not have the right to challenge the vires of the legislation after it has been passed —if the Secretary of State has the sole right to challenge the vires—the citizen who says after the event that this legislation is ultra vires may have had to conform to illegal legislation. He is therefore, suffering the worst of all worlds. He has neither the protection of a federal system with a supreme court nor the


certainty that arises from the continuance of this Parliament's position as a supreme and single Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Small: I intervene briefly to discuss the rubric to Clause 20:
Scrutiny of Assembly Bills.
"Scrutiny" is an exquisite word. Any future Secretary of State, of whatever party, is likely to be involved with such a matter. He is unlikely to adopt any kind of central derogation and lose face. The upshot of all this is that he will take counsel's opinion before reaching a decision.
In the normality of life there is a style of parliamentary etiquette which identifies the House of Commons man working for the good of the nation. I do not know that the Scottish Assembly will be any different in quality or nature working on behalf of the Scottish nation.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Very much the same debate as we have just had will arise on the next group of amendments. In the clause it is the Secretary of State who is given the power to make the opinion. In my amendment it is the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament. In the next group of amendments an alternative is given—either the Secretary of State or the House may make the decision. It might be convenient, since we are pressed for time, for the Minister of State to answer both these points at once. Therefore, it might suit the Committee if we consider the next group of amendments before the hon. Gentleman addresses us. I am giving the Minister of State warning so that he can stop me from asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I shall be happy to oblige the Committee. However, I have been asked, even pressed, to answer some specific points. I am in a dilemma, not knowing whether to accede to the request of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) or to carry out any obligation I may have to answer the points that have been put to me strictly, and even personally, at times.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Since there

is an overlap between what we have heard and what we are about to hear, it would benefit the debate if we had some preliminary explanation from the Minister of State.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Oscar Murton): The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) can withdraw his amendment only with the unanimous consent of the Committee. One dissentient voice would be sufficient to prevent that happening.

Mr. Francis Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I think it would be appropriate for me to intervene at this stage, although it had been hoped that if the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) were adopted, I would move the next amendment, which covers very much the same ground. Indeed, the debate has gone far wider than the amendment. I am in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee does not wish the amendment to be withdrawn it would be right for me to intervene now so that the Minister can reply.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Committee's opinion could be tested. If the right hon. Member for Crosby begs leave to withdraw his amendment we shall see how the Committee decides.

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Having reflected on the matter I think it would be useful if I made a short contribution in reply to the points that have been raised. I shall try to make it as concise as possible.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The Committee will be aware that although many of the amendments in this group raise the same issues, there is one amendment, that tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which is in a different category and raises quite different issues. It would be a pity if, before we get to the deadline of 7 o'clock, it was not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to move Amendment No. 235 with which is associated New Clause No. 8, so that the Committee could take a decision on that matter, by vote if necessary.

The Chairman: I take it that there is not unanimity, and I therefore call upon Mr. Pym.

Mr. Pym: We have had a substantial and important debate, which has come up to the level of some of the remarkable debates we had last winter on the Scotland and Wales Bill. Throughout the debate we have been dealing with the legislative rôle proposed for the Assembly, which is one of the matters of central controversy in this Bill. It has been one of the main reasons why there has been such opposition to the Bill in all parts of the Committee. Hon. Members feel that this element represents a continuing threat to the unity of our country—a point made strongly by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer). It certainly raises the vital question of the rôle of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons after the Bill is passed, if it ever is. That matter is germane to the amendments currently being considered.
The devolved legislative rôle was outlined thoroughly yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). We have heard even stronger speeches today. I share the view of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the paucity of support for the Government on the Treasury Bench. I agree with him that it would have been appropriate for a Law Officer to be present to give his opinion to the Committee about the issues that have been raised. Whereas the Labour Benches have been slightly fuller than they were yesterday, there has been a surprising degree of absenteeism. However many hon. Members may be absent, that does not mean that the problems arising under the Bill will go away.
In this Bill we are dealing with the creation of another Assembly, which will be in competition to some extent with this House. We are considering two elected bodies, each enacting legislation within the United Kingdom, each with powers to amend, interfere with or repeal the legislative acts of the other. That is where the most basic element of conflict arises. The Bill contains a division of powers of a complicated nature and in a form that I do not think has ever been tried before. This is the creation of a

quasi-federal State in Scotland within the unitary State of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right to say that this is the beginning of a written constitution. We think that this is a complicated division of powers. The Minister protests that no great difficulty will arise and that everything is reasonably clear cut. No one else thinks so and no one has said so today. Furthermore, the Bill admits that differences and disputes will arise. It anticipates that and attempts to make provision for it. This clause is part of the proposed process for resolving differences. We do not think that it is a satisfactory method. Indeed, some hon. Members believe that there cannot be a satisfactory method if we go down this road.
6.15 p.m.
The amendment that I was intending to move represents an attempt to rectify one of the weaknesses, but there has been criticism of a fundamental kind for the whole clause. Our debate has been more like a "clause stand part" debate, and I am sorry that the guillotine will not permit a debate on that to take place. The amendments that we have been discussing are related to a specific aspect of it—the rôle of the Secretary of State in deciding legislative competence and matters of that kind.
The Government have shown flexibility in this matter. Over recent years they have moved a considerable distance. The Committee will remember that in the White Paper of November 1975 the original suggestion in paragraph 56 was that these decisions should be taken by the Secretary of State and the Law Officers and by the Presiding Officer in the Assembly and his Counsel. That proposition attracted a great deal of criticism, and as a result the Government yielded to some extent, in that they out into the Scotland and Wales Bill Clause 20, which is the same as this clause.
Certainly that is a change. It involves a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, for some matters, a judicial process. But we do not think that it is anything like adequate, because everything is left to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State alone No parliamentary process is envisaged in the


clause as it stands, nor is there the possibility of a parliamentary process. It does not seem to be right to give such a power exclusively to the Secretary of State.
Whether a Bill is, in the words of subsection (1)(a),
within the legislative competence of the Assembly
is a matter of opinion, and there will be different opinions about it. As the Commitee understands, there will be many pressures on the Secretary of State. There will be many considerations for him to take into account. There will not only be legal considerations; there will be political considerations to take into account. So why should he alone be left to decide?
It seems to me that either House of Parliament may wish to express a view about this. Our Amendment No. 358 gives an option to the Secretary of State, to this House or to another place to express a view. We think it quite wrong that it should be left exclusively to the Secretary of State.
But in subsection (1)(b), the position is even worse, because the Secretary of State is not even required to make any further reference to any other body, let alone a court or a judicial committee. It is not a proper procedure, because we are dealing with matters of fact and of law, and it should not be left to the Secretary of State alone to decide.
In the same White Paper of November 1975, in a section headed
European Community and other international aspects",
this sentence appears, in paragraph 91:
…since international obligation is essentially a matter of fact and law (often involved and technical) rather than of general political judgment, the use of reserve powers in these cases will not require the approval of Parliament.
In other words, we are dealing with matters of fact and law, and clearly those matters are justiciable and should have a judicial process accorded to them.
What is more, in the case of the European Community our obligations are laid down in writing and there is the European Court to which such matters can be referred. Indeed, there is an amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) to pro-

pose that these matters should be referred to the European Court. But whether that were done or not, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could also be asked to look at these matters as well as to consider whether a Bill is within the legislative competence of the Assembly.

Mr. Powell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman anxious that in that event there could arise a conflict, which we would not wish to create, between the advice of the Judicial Committee and the decision, by which we are bound, of the European Court? Is there not that difficulty?

Mr. Pym: That is a perfectly fair point. But I am not advocating that we should take these matters to the European Court. I merely point out that there is a European Court which could be used and that there is an amendment to that effect. I am saying that what applies to subsection (1)(a) could also apply to subsection (1)(b), and that these matters of international obligation could just as well be referred to the Judicial Committee as matters relating to the legislative competence of the Assembly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), but I should like to get one matter clear. Are we still discussing Amendment No. 82, or are we moving to a general debate?

Mr. Pym: Amendment No. 182 deals also with the matters that I have just been discussing. It deals with the international and Community obligations of the United Kingdom. That is the element with which I was dealing. But, in any event, I am sure that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will agree that this whole debate has gone far wider than the terms of that amendment. At any rate, all these matters can be judicially determined, and so also can the other matters appropriate for a parliamentary rôle. Why should the Secretary of State or the Government be above Parliament on such issues?
What is more, in areas of devolved responsibility, as proposed in the Bill, by definition I should have thought that there was no hurry and that there was plenty of time for a parliamentary process and plenty of time for a judicial


process. They are not matters requiring immediate or urgent decision which cannot be referred to the House.
It is a little strange to refer a matter of fact to the Judicial Committee in one instance, as set out in subsection (1)(a), and not in another, as set out in subsection (1)(b). If a Government wish to dispute any opinion or decision of the Judicial Committee, they can always do so provided that Parliament is convinced.
It is appropriate to point out that the clause is not the only one dealing with the differences and conflicts that will arise from the division of legislative powers. I refer the Committee to Clause 36, which mentions this clause specifically. It reads:
If it appears to the Secretary of State…that a Bill passed by the Assembly contains any provision which would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly … he may lay the Bill before Parliament.
I do not know whether we shall have time to debate those words. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members are hoping that we shall. Looking at the timetable motion, it is doubtful. But those words are drawn extremely wide. They amount, in effect, to a licence to interfere. At any rate, in that case it is a parliamentary process, and I agree with it.
But under the Clause 36 procedure, we find that Parliament would be invited by the Secretary of State to support a resolution that an Assembly Bill be not submitted to Her Majesty in Council—that is to say, the legislative competence of the Assembly is not in doubt but some other contradiction is thought to exist.
Here we see how, even if an Assembly Bill is within the Assembly's legislative competence and no one disputes that, it can still be overruled by a vote in another political body, which is to say this House. If that is not a recipe for discord and disagreement, I do not know what is.
However, Clause 36 is a parliamentary process. Parliament can disagree with the Secretary of State, who may be motivated by all sorts of legitimate considerations but also by highly political considerations. In those circumstances, Parliament should be entitled to hear the case,

listen to the arguments and come to a view.

Mr. John Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is taking into account that with this clause it is a matter of vires and that with Clause 36 it is a matter of override. Therefore, what might be appropriate in one case is not necessarily appropriate in the other.

Mr. Pym: I appreciate that there is that difference. However, I am drawing attention to complications that will arise and differences that will exist between Parliament and the Assembly, and to the different method of treatment. In the case of override, there is a parliamentary element in it. But that is not so in this clause, which apparently intends to leave the Secretary of State effectively in an unchallengeable position.
The amendments are designed to ensure that at any rate all matters that are justiciable should go to a Judicial Cornmittee—that is to say, in respect of legislative competence, our European Community obligations and our international obligations. They go to the Judicial Committee either at the instance of the Secretary of State or of this House of Commons or another place. We on the Conservative Benches are strongly opposed to legislative powers being devolved in this way, because we are convinced that the result would be a muddle that would prove unworkable.
The amendment was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in a manner that is very close to the Bill, certainly as an attempt at a constructive improvement, which I think the Government could accept—that is, if the clause were not knocked out in its entirety as an unsatisfactory clause. It seems to us that in the clause as it stands the Secretary of State and the Government are trying to avoid a parliamentary process and in some cases a judicial process. If the amendment is not accepted, the Secretary of State may find that he still has not avoided being challenged in the courts over a decision that he takes and that he hoped could not be challenged.
It is a feature of the present Government that Ministers find themselves in court on rather frequent occasions. Regrettably, they seem to arrive there, to be challenged and usually to lose their cases


without any sign of embarrassment on their part, let alone any attempt at resignation. At any rate, we think that the provisions laid down in the clause do not deal satisfactorily with the disputes that will arise. It is in order to avoid that kind of situation that this constructive though very limited amendment has been tabled by my right hon. Friend.
I very much regret that the timetable will not allow us to have a full debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", on which we could have dealt with fundamental issues in the area into which we have strayed. That is a very great pity. It is not possible for me to cover all the ground that I should have liked to cover. My right hon. Friend has moved the amendment in the spirit of—so far as it is possible—making a bad Bill slightly less bad. I commend it in the same spirit.
It is a tragedy that we cannot debate the clause as a whole, because we believe that it is a thoroughly bad one and will be proved to be so within the course of a very few years if it is enacted.

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) ranged fairly widely in the course of his speech. I feel obliged to reply to some of his points, many of which were perhaps slightly beyond the narrow ambit of the amendment and the way in which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) moved it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was insistent in putting a question about consultation. He quoted from a previous passage in Hansard in which I had said that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had been informed of the pre-assent reference procedure. I can confirm this. I can tell him, because I have checked it in detail, that both the Clerk to the Privy Council and the Registrar of the Judicial Committee were consulted about the pre-assent procedure.
I think that my hon. Friend does not sufficiently appreciate the point that it would not be proper for the Government to consult judges about a constitutional reform that the Government are to lay before Parliament. It would not be proper for the judges to express opinions to members of the Government about a political matter that is to be put before

Parliament. Therefore, with respect to my hon. Friend, I think that that is a point without very much substance. If we were to go round consulting members of the Judicial Committee or any other members of the judiciary about constitutional reform, we should receive many complaints from another direction.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Minister agree that there is a precedent for consulting judges? Is it not right that before the monopolies legislation was passed in 1964 or 1965, when a judicial review of mergers was being brought in for the first time, judges were asked about it because it was felt that they were going to have to exercise a political and economic judgment as well as a legal judgment?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me, because I am not aware of what consultations, if any, took place in 1964. It is quite proper for a court to be consulted about procedure and the procedural consequences that might follow for it from a decision that Parliament might arrive at, adding a new task to the role of that court or that tribunal, or whatever other body.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian said—I do not know with what authority—that some judges were unhappy about it. The House of Commons takes decisions on the rôles that we shall ask the judges to perform as we alter the constitution in the way that is provided for in the Bill. My hon. Friend has raised this matter on points of order time and again. I hope that he will accept my explanation of the reason why individual members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are not consulted in matters of this sort. It is entirely proper that they should not be consulted in matters of this sort. Indeed, it might be improper if they were consulted.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Does not the Minister think that his statement that the Judicial Committee was consulted—if I understand his words correctly— was a little misleading when he consulted only the Registrar? The Clerk of the Council has nothing to do with the Judicial Committee.

Mr. Smith: I think the opposite. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me. I specifically said that these were the people consulted. Having told my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that they had been informed, and as he is so anxious to establish what precisely happened, I made specific inquiries. If the right hon. Member for Crosby looks at Hansard tomorrow he will see that I have made it crystal clear that these were the people consulted. If he wants to make out that I implied in some way that the judges themselves were consulted, I think that he is straining the ordinary meaning of English. I think that he knows that perfectly well. The tenor of the proposition in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment is that he is making rather heavy weather of these provisions.
Perhaps I may move from reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian on the point that concerns him so much to the way in which the right hon. Member for Crosby moved his amendment.

Mr. Gow: I have been trying to follow the Minister of State's argument that it would somehow be improper for him or his Department to have discussions with any members of the Judicial Committee. However, does the Minister not understand that the Lord Chancellor himself and the Lord President, who are both members of the Cabinet and who have both approved the Bill—the name of one of them actually appears on the Bill—must have considered this matter and expressed a view about it?

Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows very well the way in which the Judicial Committee operates, and that the Lord President would never sit on it in a judicial capacity. The Lord Chancellor is in many ways a very odd feature of our constitution, combining, as he does, an executive and judicial rôle. However, we shall not go into that. The important point was that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian seemed to be raising a great constitutional issue. I hope that I have assured him about that, and that there is no element of bad faith. We have behaved as one would expect a Government to behave in such circumstances, and it would not be

appropriate to go to the judges saying "Would you prefer Parliament or yourselves to do this?"

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is a lawyer and I am not. However, to some of us it seems that on this issue the Lord Chancellor ought to have been consulted, as at any rate representative of the judges. It is they who are being asked to perform this task. That is precisely why I think that this answer ought to be given not by the Minister of State but by one of the Law Officers, perhaps the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Smith: With great respect, it is quite appropriate for me to give this answer, because it concerns not a legal matter but a matter of the propriety of Government and the propriety of the way in which the Government operate within the constitution. It is a matter that concerns my hon. Friend very much, but I should have thought that in these matters he should regard himself not as a layman or a spokesman for laymen but as a parliamentarian who is able to judge these things. This is not some arcane legal point. It concerns the way in which the Government handle their relationship with the judiciary. However, that is some distance away from the amendment.
I hope to take some account of the persistence of my hon. Friend and of the number of times that he has raised this point. I think that he has been on a wrong point, and I hope that he will accept what I have said. He is handsome about these matters. He accepts it when he is wrong. There is a difference of opinion. I hope that he will accept that it is not such a major matter as he made out.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Crosby described the drafting and the policy of the clause as amateurish and infantile. With great respect, I think that he could do better than that. The clause is perfectly adequately drafted. What the right hon. Member has proposed is that instead of the Secretary of State referring a matter to the Judicial Committee, that is a rôle that the House of Commons, or either House of Parliament, should be able to perform. As I read the amendment, even if the House of Commons decided not to make a reference to the Judicial Committee, the House of Lords


could decide to make such a reference. It is not a decision of both Houses, as I read the amendment. No doubt the right hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong. The House of Lords could refer a matter.
Therefore, we could have a situation in which the House of Commons had discussed a matter and decided that it should not be referred upon its consideration of the vires of the matter, and then the matter could go to the House of Lords and the House of Lords could take a different decision and decide that the matter should be referred. Then the matter would be referred as a result of that House of Lords decision. That seems to be a rather odd way of going about the matter.
The sensible way of going about it is for the Secretary of State to consider whether the matter is, in his opinion, within the legislative competence of the Assembly and to refer it then to the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee's decision—it will not be a political decision; again I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian—will be binding.
What, in effect, the Judicial Committee will be deciding is whether a piece of legislation or part of a piece of legislation from the Scottish Assembly falls within the powers that are conferred on that Assembly by what will by then be the Scotland Act. Every day of the week the courts construe statutory provisions and see whether the person to whom a power is given is operating within the limit of the statute. I think that that is a perfectly proper rôle for the Judicial Committee to perform in this instance. It was one that the previous Conservative Government obviously thought had some merit, because on a slightly narrower front it was provided that the Judicial Committee should be used under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
Incidentally, as the right hon. Member for Crosby raised the point, the word "decision" rather than the word "opinion" appears in that piece of legislation. The right hon. Member may have opposed that legislation and he may have criticised the drafting at that time. If he did so, he has been a remarkably consistent and far-seeing man. If, on the other hand, he did not oppose that legislation or

criticise its drafting at the time, it may be open to some hon. Members to think that he is rather selective in the criticisms that he makes on these matters.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not part of the truth—I do not say that it is the whole truth—what was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) —that, like it or not, these things would be seen as a bone of contention?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend cannot get out of the matter in that way. I think that he must take account of the fact that what the court would be asked to do in this situation would be to construe a statutory provision and see whether it was within the powers of the Scotland Act. It does not decide whether the powers that the Assembly is given are extensive or very narrow. It looks to the Scotland Act and sees what Parliament provided should be the powers of the Scottish Assembly, and then, construing that, decides whether a clause or a Bill that is brought forward by the Scottish Assembly is within those powers. I cannot think that that is a highly political decision.
I fully accept that the powers that the Scottish Assembly ought to be given is a matter of political controversy. It is such a matter here. We are arguing about it. No doubt when we reach Schedule 10 we shall be arguing that there should be powers in certain areas and not in others. That is political controversy. However, surely it is not a matter of political controversy to construe an Act and see whether the Assembly is operating within the powers that Parliament has given under that Act. I just do not see that that is a highly charged political issue.

Mr. George Cunningham: I know that the Minister of State disagrees with me about Canadian history, but if he re-reads it he will find that there was an opinion in Canada that this was a highly charged political matter. The Minister said a moment ago that the decisions of the Judicial Committee would be binding. I understand that because of Schedule 12 the decisions of the Judicial Committee would be binding on all the many lower courts that are there referred to. Will he bear in mind that paragraph 23 of Schedule 12 lays down that
If a devolution issue arises in judicial proceedings in the House of Lords, it shall be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy


Council, unless the House considers it more appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances, that they should determine the issue".
If the House of Lords determined such an issue will that be binding on the Judicial Committee? Surely it cannot work in both directions.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that part of the schedule, but that relates to a post-Assent challenge. I was asked by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) whether there is a provision in respect of such a challenge, and I confirm that there is. If he examines Schedule 12, allied to Clause 63—and I am speaking from memory—he will find such a provision there.
The point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) envisages a case coming before the House of Lords, but that relates to a slightly different provision. It envisages a post-Assent situation, not the pre-Assent situation that we are now discussing. I am willing to argue these matters in detail with my hon. Friend, but I have an obligation to answer some of the other points that have been raised in this discussion. I hope that we shall be able to discuss these matters on Schedule 12, including the relationship between the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee.
Some Opposition Members have attempted to suggest that in some way the procedure involved will be unsatisfactory. I do not agree. This is a sensible way of handling a dispute that might arise over the powers of the Assembly. It removes the charge that either the House of Commons or the United Kingdom Government may operate in a politically-motivated way to decide matters such as vires. It gives the responsibility for deciding matters of vires to the Judicial Committee.

Mr. Peter Rees: Let us accept the Minister's analysis, namely, that the question here is just to initiate a judicial process. The unworthy suspicion is left in my mind that there might at some future date be a Secretary of State who, for political reasons, decides not to refer an issue to the Judicial Committee. In that situation, is there some more appropriate person, Minister

or body to whom to refer the issue? I suggest that possibly a more appropriate person to whom to refer such an issue is the Lord Advocate because he, along with the Attorney-General, is regarded as having in certain circumstances a quasi-judicial rôle. He is supposed to detach himself from the political pressures of the day.
If the Minister regards that as an absurd power, I refer him to Schedule 12 of the Bill, which suggests that in other litigation it should be the Lord Advocate who is joined in these issues. It would give a greater measure of public confidence—I am not referring to any personalities involved in these offices today—if that responsibility were placed on the shoulders of the Lord Advocate rather than the Secretary of State of the day, who might be a more political animal.

Mr. Smith: There are reasons why the Lord Advocate may operate as a Minister under Schedule 12. This relates to matters where, in the opinion of the Government, the rôle carried out by the Law Officers makes it necessary for him to intervene in a legal process. It might be said that there is an area of discretion in this case whether the Secretary of State should refer the matter to the Judicial Committee, and there might be differing opinions. We believe that in the Bill the Secretary of State would act in good faith in carrying out his statutory responsibilities.
6.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire looked ahead to other matters that were on the Order Paper. In seeking to counter his arguments—I hope that I shall not stray out of order—I should like to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on our European obligations. Also on this point, the right hon. Member for Crosby asked whether these were suitable matters to be considered by Parliament.
There is a difficulty about this matter, which we can see if we look at the wording of paragraph (b) of the Clause. We see from the way in which it is phrased that European and international obligations may not be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Two reasons are given by which the Secretary of State could refuse to refer such matters to that committee. The first, according to the Bill, relates to a matter that is


incompatible with the European Community or an international obligation. The second deals with the question whether this Parliament or the Assembly should provide for these considerations. Paragraph (b) provides that
if he is of opinion that the Bill is not compatible with Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom or that it provides for matters which are or ought to be provided for in legislation passed by Parliament and implementing any such obligation, he shall certify to the Assembly that he is of that opinion and shall not submit the Bill to Her Majesty in Council for approval.
What is given to the Secretary of State is a right not to refer the Bill to the Judicial Committee, and effectively to send it back to the Assembly. Amendment No. 357, tabled by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, says that that should be a matter to be determined by the Judicial Committee. I appreciate that there might be a code for the Judicial Committee to decide EEC or international obligations, although the line taken by Governments in this country is that it would be inappropriate for this country's international obligations to be subject to decisions by a domestic tribunal.
However, the right hon. Gentleman proposes more than that, namely, that the Judicial Committee should decide whether it will be more appropriate for Parliament rather than the Assembly to deal with legislation in respect of Europe. That cannot possibly be a proper rôle to give to the Judicial Committee. What we are giving the Judicial Committee is a perfectly defined rôle in the clause. But if we accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendment we would be asking the Judicial Committee, which is effectively a court, to consider whether Parliament or the Assembly would be a better instrument for passing legislation. I do not think that the Judicial Committee would wish that rôle to be put upon it and I do not think that it is desirable that such a difficult choice or decision should be given to a court. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian will agree with me on that point, if on no other.

Mr. Graham Page: Does that mean that the Secretary of State can choose and say that the Scottish Assembly has no legal competence, or that, on the other

hand, under paragraph (b), he can do the same thing and say that the Scottish Assembly has not the competence to handle the matter because this Parliament should handle it? Does he have a clear choice?

Mr. Smith: The choice of Parliament or the Assembly is confined within paragraph (b). If it is a Bill that does not raise EEC or international obligations, my right hon. Friend is under a duty to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if he thinks that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Assembly.
Let me say how we see this operating in practice. We do not anticipate that a large number of questions will be raised or referred to the Judicial Committee in the normal course of events. The Assembly will be advised, as legislation proceeds, whether the matter is within its legislative competence. No doubt the United Kingdom Government will examine legislation coming from the Scottish Assembly, because we shall have to dovetail that legislation with other legislation passed here or in Scotland as part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom Parliament.
Normal representations will be made if it is believed that a particular provision is beyond the legislative competence of the Assembly. It is only in hard cases where there is a genuine difference of opinion—which may be about small matters—that it may be convenient for both sides that the Secretary of State should refer the matter to the Judicial Committee, which can then come to a reasoned legal decision on the meaning of the statute.
The Government were wise to change their policy from that contained in the 1975 White Paper, under which the Secretary of State would have operated the veto. As a result of criticism, the Government reflected upon that. We received representations from many quarters about the undesirability of that policy, and we responded to them and made changes. We should receive more recognition for the fact that we listened to reasoned comment and opinion. I know that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) agrees with that, because he has been a strong supporter of this provision. I am grateful to him for the


way in which he has pursued his ideas on this matter, although he has not been able to take part in the debate today.

Mr. Pym: I acknowledge the change in the Government's thinking but, with reference to paragraph (b), how does the Minister justify leaving adjudication on that matter solely in the hands of the Secretary of State? The Minister has complained that it would not be right to send such matters to the Judicial Committee, but if they are left in the hands of the Secretary of State how can that be any more right?

Mr. Smith: It is more appropriate that the Secretary of State should decide whether a Bill is compatible with Community obligations. The right hon. Gentleman's line of thought is indicated by an amendment that he has on the Order Paper. He said that all Bills should be referred to the Judicial Committee.

Mr. Brittan: My right hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) shouts at me. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire may correct me if he wishes, because I sometimes have difficulty in interpreting his amendments. I do not draft them, and I must seek to understand them as best I can.

Mr. Pym: We have difficulty in interpreting the Government's Bill.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is great danger in the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym)? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the European Community as a quasi-federal body. If we adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, we should have a domestic court pronouncing on federal matters, subject to being overruled by the quasi-federal court, and that could only bring the Judicial Committee into disrepute.

Mr. Smith: There are many complication. We think that it is far better that matters that involve the EEC and international obligations—and there will not be many of them involved in legislation passed by the Assembly—the United

Kingdom Government should decide whether they are compatible with our obligations. That is why we have drawn a distinction between the ordinary legislation that is covered in paragraph (a) and the other types of legislation affecting EEC and international obligations.
There is another important matter, because one of the reasons, under paragraph (b), why the Secretary of State can stop Assembly legislation is that he believes that Parliament should provide for the implementation of such legislation through a United Kingdom statute. It was on that point that I was atttacking the ideas of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. It is better that the Secretary of State should take such a decision than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I must stress that it is not a case of the judges being involved in making essentially political decisions. It would not be wise to involve the judiciary in making essentially political decisions, any more than it would be wise for a Minister to try cases. We should not impose political tasks on the judiciary because for some reason we do not want to face the responsibility of them. However, a matter of vires is very much a matter of construing a statute, and it is proper that that should go to the Judicial Committee. That is the most effective way to have a sensible check upon the limits of authority of the Assembly.
I again heard today the litany trotted out that this was somehow a recipe for conflict. I should have thought that it was the opposite—that it was the sensible way of resolving potential difficulties in interpreting the powers of the Assembly.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Minister agree that whether this is a recipe for conflict or not, it is certainly a recipe for muddle if an individual citizen is to have the right to argue before the court that legislation passed by the Scottish Assembly is ultra vires? What would happen if the legislation had been working for three years and suddenly along came Fred Smith and showed that it was illegal?

Mr. John Smith: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman takes that view because I had thought that he was previously urging the desirability of post-Assent challenge. However it is an


interesting argument. One must weigh the rights of the citizen to complain before the courts about alleged ultra vires activity, against practical considerations about the certainty of legislation. No doubt the Committee will have some interesting discussions on that point when we reach the relevant part of the Bill. However, it is wiser that I should now confine my remarks to the amendment under discussion, and we are here dealing with the pre-Assent scrutiny stage.
The value of this procedure is that if there were disagreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Assembly on the powers of the Assembly, before a Bill could become law it would be referred to the Judicial Committee for decision. That is a practical and sensible way of dealing with the dispute, and I anticipate that there will not be many cases because of the existence of the procedure. Most people will consider carefully the implications of having to go before the Judicial Committee and justify their decision. We shall probably build up a valuable and useful body of case law for the guidance of future framers of Assembly legislation.

Mr. Small: Will the Minister explain the composition of the Judicial Committee? Will it have to reach a unanimous decision? I recognise that the committee is composed of top-level legal headshrinkers, but how long will be allowed for its thought processes?

Mr. Smith: The Judicial Committee tends to give one opinion but it does have the capacity, under an Order in Council of 1966, to issue differing opinions and to have differing judgments, just as many other courts do. It will come to its decision in open court. The present room that is used by the committee is fairly small, and if busloads of people wished to come down from the Assembly to listen to its deliberations it might be necessary to find more commodious premises.
The Judicial Committee has an historic rôle in constitutional matters. It was, in effect, a supreme court for Canada in deciding constitutional questions between the Federal Government and the

Provinces from 1867 to 1949—questions arising out of the interpretation of the British North America Act fundamental to the constitution of Canada. But it is not right to say that it ceased to have that role because of controversy. That was because it was decided that it was inappropriate that such important matters should be sent to this country for decision, and it was agreed that they should be decided in Canada by the Supreme Court there. It would be nothing new for the Judicial Committee to handle such matters, and we are giving it a new rôle only in the sense that we are separating questions of vires from questions of override.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred to Clause 36, but that deals with a quite different matter, relating to occasions when the Secretary of States believes that something that the Assembly has done is having an unfortunate effect upon a reserved matter. In those circumstances lays it before Parliament, and there is a parliamentary procedure, because that is very much a matter of policy. We are distinguishing a matter of vires, and therefore one must use different solutions to meet different problems.

Mr. Tim Renton: rose—

Mr. Smith: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He complained that I called him a Bourbon last night. I thought that he would take that as a compliment, but if he thinks that it is an insult, I certainly withdraw it. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is one of those who are totally opposed to any form of devolution and will criticise any aspect of it. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) is another. Whatever solution we propose, they will find something impossible about it. Those who are trying to make this a better Bill, as they would put it—

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—.

The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 282.

Division No. 29]
AYES
[7.16 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Heffer, Eric S


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Henderson, Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooley, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Deakins, Eric
Hooson, Emlyn


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Horam, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dempsey, James
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Barnetl, Guy (Greenwich)
Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Les


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bates, Alf
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bean, R. E.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beith, A. J.
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin (Brighousei


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
English, Michael
Janner, Grevilie


Boardman, H.
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)
Jenkins. Hugh (Putney)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, John (Newton)
John, Brynmor


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stiring)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchanan, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Campbell, Ian
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Cant, R. B.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kinnock, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lambie, David


Cartwright, John
Freud, Clement
Lamborn, Harry


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lamond, James


Clemitson, Ivor
George, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Gilbert, Dr John
Lee, John


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Gould, Bryan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Concannon, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Corbett, Robin
Graham, Ted
Litterick, Tom


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loyden, Eddie


Crawford, Douglas
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Crawshaw, Richard
Grocott, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Harper, Joseph
McCartney, Hugh


Cryer, Bob
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
MacCormick, Iain


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dalyell, Tam
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McElhone, Frank


Davidson, Arthur
Hatton, Frank
MacFarquhar, Roderick







Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Perry, Ernest
Swain, Thomas


Maciennan, Robert
Prescott, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Madden, Max
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Magee, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mahon, Simon
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Ron (Bristol IW)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thompson, George


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tierney, Sydney


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tomlinson, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Torney, Tom


Meacher, Michael
Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ward, Michael


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Mitchell, Austin
Ryman, John
Weetch, Ken


Molloy, William
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Moonman, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Selby, Harry
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sever, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
White, James (Pollok)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Whitlock, William


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Noble, Mike
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Orbach, Maurice
Small, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ovenden, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Padley, Walter
Sprlggs, Leslie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Palmer, Arthur
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woodall, Alec


Pardoe, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Woof, Robert


Park, George
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Parker, John
Stoddart, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger



Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pendry, Tom
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. Jim Marshall.


Penhaligon, David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley





NOES


Adley Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope,John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Alison, Michael
Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Corrie, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Arnold, Tom
Costain, A. P.
Grist, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hannam, John


Biffen. John
Drayson, Burnaby
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biggs-[...]John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Dunlop, John
Hastings, Stephen


Body, Richard
Durant, Tony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hlggins, Terence L.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Emery, Peter
Hodgson, Robin


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Brittan, Leon
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hordern, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brooke, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brotherton, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hurd, Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
James, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Carlisle, Mark
Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.
Jopllng, Michael


Carson, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhart, Philip
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clegg, Walter
Goodlad, Alastair
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cockroft, John
Gorst, John
Knox, David







Lamont, Norman
Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Nelson, Anthony
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Lawrence, Ivan
Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith


Lawson, Nigel
Newton, Tony
Spence, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Nott, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Lioyd, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sproat, Iain


Loveridge, John
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stainton, Keith


Luce, Richard
Parkinson, Cecil
Stanbrook,Ivor


McAdden. Sir Stephen
Percival, Ian
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


McCrindle, Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


McCusker, H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacGregor, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tapsell, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Raison, Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, David
Rathbone, Tim
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Townsend, Cyril D.


Marten, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Trotter, Neville


Mates, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mather, Carol
Benton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Maude, Angus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Viggers, Peter


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rhodes James, R.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Miscampbell, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wells, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Molyneaux, James
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Montgomery, Fergus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Younger, Hon George


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shepherd, Colin



Morgan, Geraint
Shersby, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Silvester, Fred
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and Mr. Michael Roberts.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sims, Roger



Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sinclair, Sir George

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move Amendment No. 178, in page 9, leave out lines 6 and 7.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 179, in page 9, line 15, leave out from pleasure ' to end of line 16.

No. 180, in page 9, line 17, leave out:
'or assistant to a Scottish Secretary'.

No. 181, in page 9, line 25, leave out:
'or an assistant to a Scottish Secretary'.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. You have selected for debate in the next two and a half hours before the guillotine falls the amendments grouped under Amendment No. 178 and the amendments grouped under Amendment No. 368. It is clear

to everyone in the Committee that the significance of those amendments is, to say the least, a great deal less than the significance of what we have been discussing for the last three hours. That illustrates the difficulty of allocating slots of time to clauses well in advance, with the result that the Committee cannot allocate its time as it goes along to what turns out to be significant in these proceedings.
May I use this occasion to plead with those on the Business Committee to review their decision if we are not to come to the end of the proceedings on the Bill with virtually no time to discuss some important amendments, and some amendments which have a chance of being accepted, which the ones we are now discussing do not have?
I realise that that point is not for you, Mr. Murton, and I pass on to one which is. If discussion on this section is finished by nine o'clock, as it surely can be, we presumably start on the next section under the guillotine motion? I see you nodding, Mr. Murton. You probably noticed at about 10 minutes to seven


agitation in the Chamber, and it may have appeared to you, as it was perfectly obvious to me, that some people were trying to delay things until seven o'clock.
We all understand why the two rival armies wish to arrange a vote at a certain time, and this is sometimes in the interests of us all. But, given the shortage of time for discussing certain amendments, can you be open-minded about the possibility of accepting closure motions in such circumstances so that we do not use up our time in wasteful discussion if there is the possibility of using it in useful discussion on important amendments?

The Chairman: I can only say that the hon. Member must rely on the Chair to use its discretion in the circumstances that he has enumerated.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that the previous debate was concerned with a more important subject than is this group of amendments. In one way I entirely agree with him. That was why I and so many other hon. Members spoke so forcefully in the last debate. But this group of amendments is one of those that are perhaps more important to the people of Scotland, who are listening to our proceedings at one remove. They will be able to understand very simply and clearly what we say in this debate, more so than on the last debate, because that was concerned with the complex question of the Judicial Committee. Although that was more important, it will probably have fallen on deaf ears among those responsible for the television and tomorrow's newspapers.
In Scotland the enthusiasm for devolution has fallen off quite remarkably. At the beginning of the year almost 60 per cent. of the people were thought to be in favour of such a Bill as this. That figure is now down in the 30 per cent. region. The reason for this remarkable decline is based on a number of factors. The people of Scotland have had what they regard as a bad experience over the reform of local government. They are fed up with the way in which civil servants and bureaucrats have multiplied under that reform, and they see in this Bill the imposition upon them of another tier of government.
They are deserting the devolution cause because they see before them the prospect of more government, more civil servants, more bureaucracy, more red tape, more expense to keep the civil servants in being, and so on. I do not agree with the criticisms from the SNP on this, but the reason for those criticisms is that where, before, one local government official was doing a job, now there are three. People see that this will happen, say, under this Bill.
We are seeking to remove from the Assembly the power to create Assistant Secretaries of State. That is the sort of point that makes people despair about the sort of bodies, institutions and further layers of government that Westminster is imposing upon them. If we do not eliminate the words in the Bill as proposed in the amendment we shall give Scotland the most top-heavy government in Western Europe. There will be community councils, district councils, regional councils, the Scottish Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament. We are trying to show here that we have far too many layers of government and that we should at least try to diminish one layer—the new Assembly.
Under the present arrangements we shall have so-called Secretaries for Scotland. There will be a First Secretary, who will be equivalent to the Prime Minister. If this Bill ever comes into effect I will bet every penny I have that the First Secretary in Scotland will be known as the Scottish Prime Minister, and that will serve only to boost nationalism.
In addition, there will be other Secretaries of State. There will be Secretaries of State for Transport, Education, Housing and Health. That is bad enough because all those people have to be paid, and they will have the power to fix their own salaries. I should be most surprised if the members of the Assembly were content to fix their salaries at a rate below that applicable to Westminster Members.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Perhaps I may make the narrow point, which is not entirely related to devolution, that Members of this House have the right to set their own salaries, and in terms of parliamentary democracy I do not think that we give ourselves exaggeratedly high sums.

Mr. Sproat: Indeed, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I remember his putting forward a point last night which was greeted—rightly so—with a certain amount of ridicule. He was suggesting that Members of the Scottish Assembly would be so responsible in financial matters that we should have no worries in that regard. I do not believe that the people of Scotland share his confidence in the way in which Members of the Scottish Assembly would treat these matters. The first cry would be "Jobs for the boys". They would be setting their own salaries and giving themselves £15,000 a year.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Surely the point is that when we increase our salaries we know that we have to get the money out of the taxpayer, but the Members of the Assembly will not have to do that. For them the sky will be the limit.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I shall return to the financial implications in a minute. So far we have only been talking of the Secretary of State. There will be many Secretaries of State, but according to this clause there are also to be Assistant Secretaries of State. Whoever is appointed as the Scottish Secretary of State for Hospitals will not feel that he ought to do such a serious job on his own. He will want to have two or three junior Ministers. It will not be simply a matter of the four or five Ministers that we have present in the Scottish Office. The Secretary of State for Hospitals may well have a pal who did not get a job, and he will be able to appoint him as a junior Minister in his Department and give him perhaps £9,000 a year—and so it will go on. That is not such an unreasonable figure. It is the sort of rate which junior Ministers are getting here.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) would, I am sure, be very happy to tell me that she would not accept a lower rate in the Scottish Assembly than I am paid here. Obviously, the people in the Scottish Assembly will demand as much as they can get. They might even look at the European Parliament, where the salaries are to be £22,000 a year plus £8,000 expenses. The Scottish Assembly might want to be fair and fix the salaries at a point somewhere between

the scale of the European Parliament and ours in Westminster.
People in Scotland will feel that this is another excuse for creating jobs for the boys. The Assembly will fix its own salaries, and I believe that it will fix them good. At the same time, all the new junior Ministers will require more civil servants. I am sure that the worst fears of the Scottish electorate concerning more government, more bureaucracy, more civil servants, more red tape and more expenses, will be realised.
In these amendments we are trying to diminish in some little way the appalling extra cost and burden and the interference generally which will be placed on the backs of the Scottish people if this miserable Bill should ever get through Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) talked about the money. Where does the money come from? It comes from the block grant. What would happen? This House would vote so much to the Scottish Assembly and the Assembly would say that it was not enough. The people on Merseyside and in East Anglia would probably say that it was too much. We should have that sort of hassle to start with. It would never be enough for the Scottish Assembly, and if it were ever enough for the Assembly it would be too much for people in other parts of the United Kingdom.
All the Secretaries of State and Assistant Secretaries of State and Members of the Assembly would be able to increase their salaries. The money would come out of the block grant, so that there would then be less money in the grant for other purposes, and the Assembly would come back to Westminster asking for more money. At the same time, there would be difficulties with the people in other parts of the United Kingdom—for example, the people of London. The people of London already have the delightful prospect of being told that a Scottish Assembly can make laws affecting London. It is no use the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) shaking his head. There is consequential and incidental legislation which can apply to all parts of the United Kingdom. It is in the Bill.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It was made clear last night that, for example, if the


Scottish Assembly were to abolish the housing corporations in Scotland it would require amending legislation in the United Kingdom substantive Act. It is that sort of change that has been talked about.

Mr. Sproat: It may have been talked about by the Minister, who was trying to put a minimal case, but many other changes were mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned salmon fisheries, and someone else mentioned forestry. I mentioned public lending rights. There are many other areas involved.
I ask the people of Scotland to consider honestly—and particularly to ask the SNP to say honestly—what would be their feelings if a Minister for London said that the Greater London Council was to be given powers to make laws affecting Scotland, adding that it would not amount to very much; just a little bit here and there. I am certain that the Scottish people would say "In no way shall we have the GLC making laws affecting Scotland." Similarly, it would be totally unjust if the Scottish Assembly were to have that sort of power in relation to London.
7.45 p.m.
At the same time as having that happy knowledge, people in London will also know that they will be subsidising a bureaucracy in Scotland. It will be out of the taxes that are being paid in other parts of the United Kingdom that the block grant will be funded to keep the Secretaries of State and Assistant Secretaries of State in office, with the salaries to which they would like to accustom themselves. I repeat that it will be a matter of jobs for the boys—indeed, expensive jobs for the boys.
Why are industry and commerce in Scotland so implacably opposed to this Bill in any shape or form? It is not only that they fear—quite rightly—that the Scottish Assembly would have the power to increase and impose more taxes, as for example, to derate industrial premises as it would under the present system—a subject that we could not debate last night due to the guillotine. Commerce and industry are also opposed to the Bill because of the endless intervention that they would have from all these Secretaries of State and Assistant Secretaries of State,

with the concomitant bureaucracy and red tape.
I very much hope that the Committee will consider the amendment in a broad way. We are trying to cut down the cost and the bureaucracy that the Government seek to inflict on us.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) seemed to fear that the Scottish Assembly would be extravagant and profligate, spending money like water. I hope that my Scottish Friends on the Government side will not take any offence if I say that I have never met an extravagant Scotsman who threw his money or anybody else's money around carelessly; generosity, perhaps, but not extravagance or profligacy.
If the Scottish Assembly is to benefit from the mistakes that we have made in this House, we should decide what the salary levels will be for Members of the Scottish Executive and for Members of the Assembly. We should link these with grades in the Civil Service, as this House, by a majority, has decided to do in regard to its own salaries. We should endeavour to ensure that the sort of bitterness and difficulties which have been experienced by Members of this House over many years are avoided in the Scottish Assembly. If that is accepted in Scotland, we ought to have it in the Bill somewhere, so that the Assembly does not encounter the difficulties that we have experienced year after year.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for a little information about some of the finer points of the wording here. We seem to be empire-building and playing Monopoly with Governments and appointments of one kind or another. Clause 21(1) speaks of
a Scottish Executive one of whose members shall be known as the First Secretary".
Subsection (5) states that
If the Assembly has nominated one of its members for appointment as First Secretary that member shall be so appointed".
Nowhere in the clause does it state that the First Secretary must be a member of the Scottish Executive. Nowhere does it state that he must be a Member of the Assembly. Nowhere does it state that he can be appointed directly by Her Majesty or by the Secretary of State, although no


doubt it is implicit that he should be. I would hope that he would be, but there is nothing in the clause to say that he must be.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also look at subsection (8), which states:
A person appointed (otherwise than in pursuance of subsection (7) of this section) to be a Scottish Secretary or an assistant to a Scottish Secretary shall relinquish his appointment on ceasing to be a member of the Assembly; but for this purpose a member of the Assembly shall not be treated as ceasing to be such a member on the dissolution of the Assembly if he is again elected at the election following the dissolution.
How does one know whether he will or will not be elected at the following election? If not, will anything he does in the interim period be valid in law? That is a point which my right hon. Friend might take up.
I take it that what is intended is that the First Secretary and the Scottish Secretary shall continue their appointments and hold office after dissolution until the new Assembly has met and has either reappointed them or not re-appointed them. I take it that their appointment will continue in exactly the same way as the Government continue in the period between the dissolution of this House and the creation of another House.
If that is what is meant why do we not say so? Just because this is a Scotland Bill, it does not mean that we need to murder the Queen's English, which we seem to be doing in this clause.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has done the House a service by bringing forward the amendment. Although I do not agree with my hon. Friend on every point, I still believe that it is important. As one who supports the principle of a Scottish Assembly, I agree with him that the Assembly we set up should operate as economically and sensibly as possible and that extra costs and additional posts should be avoided.
At this stage of the legislation it is the responsibility of the Government to justify why particular posts are put in the Bill. However, I would say to my hon. Friend with respect that I believe he has slightly exaggerated his case with regard to the motivation of Members of the Assembly. Having lived and worked

among Scots the whole of my life, I do not believe that whatever public body is set up will behave in the somewhat profligate manner suggested by my hon. Friend. With regard to the Assembly, I believe that its Members, when elected, will behave reasonably and responsibly with regard to what they get paid, with regard to what the officers of the Assembly get paid and with regard to the number and size of staff which they employ.

Mr. Galbraith: Did my hon. Friend say that he was not aware of any local authority in Scotland which behaved in a profligate manner?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was speaking of public authorities in Scotland. My hon. Friend could obviously criticise particular local authorities in particular ways. But I must confess that I have not yet seen a local authority that has behaved in the precise manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. I do not know of any local authority which on taking office immediately gives jobs to the boys and all the rest. In all honesty, I do not think that that is the case with regard to those in public life in Scotland.
I do not see why this should be the case with regard to the Scottish Assembly. I agree with my hon. Friend that, of course, if the Assembly had powers to raise taxation we would have had a particular discipline which would have helped. But I would point out to my hon. Friend that if the Assembly decides to vote itself extra salaries and expenses it will be at the expense of other services which come out of the block grant. I do not believe that the block grant system is the right system for financial discipline and accountability, even though certain disciplines do exist.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has persisted in saying that he would like tax-raising powers for the Assembly. I do not put this as a trick question. But if we are to be serious about it the hon. Gentleman ought to say precisely what tax-raising powers he has in mind, because that is what has defeated my hon. Friends.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that. Anyone who has read the Layfield Committee's Report must accept the problems


of doing so. I accept that with regard to local authority finance, as well as the finance of a body like the Assembly, there are difficulties which we shall not be able to solve immediately. But in the longer term we must try to remove some of the centralising features of the present tax system, such as income tax, which we have in this country. That is a separate point, and I shall leave it at that.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my intervention.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I apologise, Mr. Godman Irvine, for being diverted. I did not intend to raise that matter myself.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South that we do not want to see in Scotland the continual addition of further layers of government which will lead undoubtedly at the end of the day to over-government. I should like to put this on the record. I have said elsewhere, and I repeat it now, that if we have an Assembly in Scotland it will be necessary to see consequential changes in local government in order to prevent extra tiers of government on the people of Scotland.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I have always been interested in this theory about consequential changes. Since local authorities are executives and the Assembly is supposed to be a legislature, how can the Assembly take over any of the duties of the local authorities?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not quite say that. I am asking whether it is appropriate that the present function of local authorities should be exercised on a two-tier system. We are talking about layers of government but not in relation to the precise functions of government. However, I do not want to digress from this point, otherwise I shall be called to order again.
If we are to have a form of devolution which is in any way meaningful or sensible, I believe that the amendment and the others associated with it would, if carried, simply emasculate the Assembly. It would have the effect of simply turning the Assembly into a talking shop with certain legislative powers. If the Assembly

is to carry out its functions properly and in any way meet the legitimate desires of many people in Scotland, without an Executive it will not properly be able to carry out its functions in the way that is envisaged.
After all, we are dealing in the Bill with a form of Assembly put forward by the Government. Whether we believe that that form of Assembly is right, we are dealing with a form of Assembly that has come before the House. To remove the Executive from that Assembly would be to emasculate the form of devolution which has been put forward.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Raison: I am a bit puzzled by my hon. Friend's rather sweeping observation. All that the amendments say is that there should not be assistant secretaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made a rather good argument for saying that these people were superfluous and otiose, but I do not see that if we abolish secretaries we abolish the whole Executive.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am making the wider point because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said earlier that we were dealing with the whole principle of the Executive. I do not think that it was unfair of me to try to deal briefly with the principle of having an Executive. While I support my hon. Friend's amendment, at least on trimming down the Executive, and making savings, we must not do things which, at the same time, limit the efficient carrying out of the Assembly's functions. If the amendment led to denying the Executive and the Assembly, which are necessary if we are to have this form of devolution, I would not agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) over-egged his pudding on this occasion. It is possible to damage a case by exaggerating it. I do not think that Assemblymen would demand exaggerated amounts for themselves. I do not see why they should be naturally greedy. The fear of embarrassment through appearing to demand too much would be a formidable deterrent against Assemblymen demanding absurdly high salaries. We also have to face the fact that Assemblymen would have precisely the same problems as do Members


of Parliament. At least half would have to keep two homes going, with the expenses involved, so the salaries would have to be fairly substantial even though the Assemblymen were not being greedy and were not looking for a bonanza. One has to be fair where possible.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State precisely what is the purpose of these assistants? What are they to do and how are they to be chosen? What sort of people will be chosen, and with what sort of background? It seems to go against the democratic principle slightly, although I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. I do not know enough about what is in the mind of the Government in choosing the assistants.
My main argument on the amendment is that the Assembly, especially if there is to be an Executive and assistants, could possibly spend all its time law-making. We come back to the question of moving around, as in musical chairs. Assemblymen cannot possibly be occupied for 37 to 40 hours a week simply tinkering and altering the laws of Scotland. [Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disagrees, I am happy to give way, or he can answer later. Sooner rather than later, given that one has an Executive and assistants, they will not be able to prevent themselves from starting to meddle in local government. What are the assistants to do other than put their finger into the local government pie?
Here we come to an important practical consideration. If an Assembly is established, do we have the whole list of the House of Commons, the Assembly, the regions, districts, community councils, and over-government? This is a familiar argument. The truth is that many people implicitly assume and some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) state explicitly as he did in the Sunday Mail, that we need a one-tier system to go with the Assembly. That means that the regions must go.
At one level, perhaps, it is a popular and certainly an easy cry that the regions must be abolished. Like every other organisation, the regions had teething troubles, and I do not doubt that there are special problems in Strathclyde. I have a

constituency in two regions, Central and Lothian, and it strikes me that over the past 18 months the regions have been settling down far better than could have been expected two years ago. In spite of what was said about them, the regions are becoming relatively more acceptable. I shall not say that they are popular, because forms of government are not popular, but at least people acquiesce in the proposition that this is a relatively efficient form of government. That is a complete change from what was thought two years ago.
My point is that any changing around will have its teething troubles, and change itself costs an enormous amount of money. The idea of dismantling the regions at this stage, shortly after they have been set up, is mind-boggling. It would be extremely expensive, and some of us would find it difficult to have the heart to ask NALGO members and others who burned the candle at midnight to try to get that form of local government changed to go through the whole exercise again. While it may appear attractive to get rid of the regions, it is not practical and it is not devolutionary.
Those of us who would like to give more powers to the regions can claim, without raising too much of a snigger, that we are the best devolutionists of all. If we are to talk about decision-making closer to the people, the regions—like it or not—are closer to the people than an Edinburgh Assembly. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South must know that. It is a widely-held view in Aberdeen and other parts of Scotland. I was a candidate in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles in 1959 and there was a strong feeling there in favour of more powers for the region rather than for an Assembly in Edinburgh.

Mr. Sproat: There is no doubt that when we have a referendum—if we do—the reason why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and I will be campaigning on the same platform—a Labour and Conservative platform—against the provisions of the Bill is that people in Aberdeen believe that they get a fair crack of the whip from London but that from Glasgow or Edinburgh they will have Glasgow self-interest or Edinburgh self-interest. They want the devolutionary powers that exist in Grampian, with the oversight of Westminster.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the argument that we should abolish the regions, or one of the regions, is an unthought-out guilt argument, which states that because we have added one, we have to subtract one. No one has suggested who will do the work done by the regions. The argument is a piece of political dishonesty.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will bear in mind the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I normally admit it when I am straying out of order, but this subject is crucial when we are talking about assistants. We are talking about an Executive and assistants. What on earth are they going to do if they do not meddle in local government and change it around? The argument is that if we have an Assembly, the only viable form of local government, as Mr. George Sharp has argued, is that we should have 50 or 60 all-purpose authorities. That might sound fine, but, on reflection, the idea of dismantling the regions and creating 50 or 60 seperate education authorities and 50 or 60 planning authorities is not sensible. This follows precisely from having a large Executive plus assistants in the Assembly.

Mr. Ogden: I have a question which I ought, perhaps, to have asked my hon. Friend earlier. If we accept that those two lines should be removed from the Bill and that it should not be within the power of the Assembly or the First Secretary to appoint assistants, is there anything in the Bill to prevent the First Secretary appointing some person to do the same job as an assistant and calling him a "Scottish Secretary"? In other words, is there anything to stop people being paid more to do the same job as they would do under the terms of the Bill as assistant secretaries, unless we impose a limit on the number of persons who can be appointed by the Assembly?

Mr. Dalyell: This is a question for the Secretary of State to answer. I do not want to be greedy about time. This is the inevitable problem that arises when we go ahead with an Executive and a Scottish Prime Minister and all that flows from that. I put a direct question to

the Secretary of State on precisely that point.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The argument, as I understand it, from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is that, apart from Ministers in the Assembly, there should be no assistant Ministers—simply Ministers and the First Secretary. Further, the argument is that this measure should specifically exclude the possibility of the appointment of assistants. The reason given is that it would avoid a proliferation of administration. It is said that the assistants would require assistants and they would all have to be paid.
I accept the point that has been made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who, as an alternative to the "West Lothian question", has introduced the "embarrassment factor" into the debate. This embodies the point that Members of the Assembly would be embarrassed, as we would—to put it no higher—if there was to be the highly profligate action suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. I leave that argument aside, together with the "jobs for the boys" argument. This is subject to public scrutiny and the like. Such things happen from time to time. They happen now with appointed boards.
What we have to ask ourselves is whether what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South suggests is sensible. If we have an Assembly, is it sensible to tie it down in respect of the way it will organise itself? I fully accept that those who do not believe in an Assembly would wish to tie it down as much as possible.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked why there should be assistants. The Bill says that:
the First Secretary may appoint persons".
The short answer to the question is to ask why we have Under-Secretaries.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Johnston: That is not the argument I have heard from successive Front Benches nor have I noticed successive Back Benchers being hesitant about rushing down to the Front Bench. The Labour Party, when in government earlier, created more Ministers than any previous Government in history, on the argument—and


I do not comment on this—that it was more efficient and made for greater concentration on whatever the problem was.

Mr. Galbraith: May I suggest that one of the reasons for the extraordinary expansion in the number of Ministers of State is that it is simply a way of getting round the pay pause?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: With respect to the hon. Member, it is my recollection that the Conservative Government created an additional Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office and made a virtue out of it. Not to be outdone, the Labour Government created an extra Minister of State and also made a virtue out of it. No one at the moment—this may have escaped my attention—is agitating for the reduction of numbers at the Scottish Office by the removal of an Under-Secretary of a Minister of State. It is generally accepted by both sides that this appears to be a sensible way of running the Scottish Office.

Mr. Hector Monro: No.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) says "No" but he was an Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office.

Mr. Monro: Grossly overworked and underpaid.

Mr. Johnston: I do not recollect the hon. Member protesting.
It is not a sensible proposition to say that we shall forbid the First Secretary from appointing assistants if that is deemed to be a sensible method of making progress. The hon. Member for West Lothian asked what they would do. They would have their fingers in the pie, he said. They would want to get their fingers into the local government pie, he claimed. He said that such people would wish to justify themselves.
It is part of the purpose of the Assembly not to get its fingers into the pie of local government but to get its fingers into the pie of St. Andrew's House, which has its fingers in the pie of local government. That is one of the primary arguments.
The Secretary of State was being belaboured at Scottish Question Time this afternoon by Conservative Members ask-

ing when he would make a statement about training colleges. The fact is that the opportunity for scrutiny of the decision affecting training colleges—which emanated from the Civil Service—will, one hopes, be less than it would be in the context of the Assembly. It is not much good the Secretary of State shaking his head. The time available would be less, however generous the right hon. Gentleman was able to be with the time available in the Scottish Grand Committee.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I was shaking my head over the suggestion that the decision came from the Civil Service. The decision came from me.

Mr. Johnston: We must always be polite about the Civil Service but Secretaries of State have many duties laid upon their shoulders and I suspect that they may occasionally get a little bit of assistance here and there from someone.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that even if we did make such an exclusion concerning Ministers, it would be the simplest thing in the world to get round it and appoint other Ministers. At that time, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that what we ought to do was to limit the number of Ministers. This is the "Don't let them do anything unless we examine it very carefully" brigade. There are no amendments tabled to limit the number of Ministers. What I can say, however, is that if the First Secretary is to be denied an opportunity to appoint an assistant Minister of Education all that he needs to do is to look in Schedule 10, where he will find the following list:
Education, the arts, crafts, social, cultural and recreative activities. Libraries, museums and art galleries.
There will be a Minister for Education, a Minister for Culture and a Minister for the Arts. It is not difficult to engage in that sort of exercise.

Mr. Raison: Of course it is not difficult. That is the burden of the amendment. But, as I understand it, there are about seven Scottish Office Ministers at present. The powers which will be devolved under the Bill are more or less commensurate with the powers at present


held by the Scottish Office. [Interruption.] I am told that they are, in fact, less. It is fairly evident that the proposed Secretaries will be equivalent in number to the present number of Scottish Office Ministers but that they will have less to do. How can it be argued that they will need assistants?

Mr. Johnston: There are two answers to that question. I suppose that the first is a variant of Parkinson's Law. It is rather similar to the area of social work. The more social provision that is made in the area of social work, the more work is created. That is not bad per se, because the local authority is enabled to perceive and deal with more of the problems which the electorate are anxious to see dealt with by politicians.
If we follow to its conclusion the logic of the amendment and the total logic which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South brings to government, we shall hardly have any government at all. With respect, that is not what the majority of the electorate want in very large areas of government. It is not very wise forcibly to prevent the Scottish First Secretary from functioning in what he regards as the most efficient and effective way.

Mr. Fairbairn: I know that there is a small umbilical hyphen tying the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to the Labour Party, but to suggest that the generality of the electorate want politicians to interfere more and more, through agents and bureaucrats, in their lives is a fantasy.

Mr. Johnston: I do not know about a fantasy. The last time that I held a clinic in Inverness 35 people came to see me. They would not have come if they had not wanted me personally to do something about their problems or to get someone else to do it. It is false to argue that people in general want to be left alone. A great many people want the Government to do certain things for them, and we should not imagine otherwise.
If the Committee wants the Assembly which is to be created to act in a responsible way, as opposed to the irresponsible way that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South forecast, the best way of achieving that is to allow its Members

to arrange their own affairs in their own way without undue interference.

Mr. Galbraith: The Committee is well aware how much I dislike the Bill. To my mind, it is rotten through and through. It pretends to be one thing, and it turns out to be another. It tries to be a great, fine beast, whereas it is a miserable little mouse. It pretends not to affect the unity of the United Kingdom, but in every debate, except perhaps this one, it has been shown that it will affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
The clause is typical of this dishonest attempt by pretence to placate nationalist sentiment. It is typical of the appeasing attitude of the Government. From the clause one might suppose that the Assembly was to be a real Parliament dressed up in almost the full panoply of Parliament. It will not have a Prime Minister, but it will have what at the moment is described as a First Secretary. Then it will have these spurious gentlemen called Scottish Secretaries. Why not just Secretaries, or Celtic Secretaries? But unless this amendment is accepted—and I hope very much that it will be—not only shall we have a First Secretary and Scottish Secretaries but we shall have Assistant Secretaries, presumably. Some one suggested that they would be rather like the new animal introduced by the present Government—these curious advisers. I cannot believe that. I believe that these people will be ordinary parliamentary assistants or junior Ministers.
It is a case of
big bugs have little bugs on their backs to bite them",
which is what Socialism is all about, and
little bugs have littler bugs, and so on ad infinitum.
That is exactly what the people of Scotland are afraid of, because they do not want big bugs or little bugs. They do not want any bugs at all.
During the course of this debate I have have handed to me a note saying "Can you emphasise the calamitous collapse of of the support for devolution in Scotland over the last six months?" I do not carry figures in my head, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) does. We all know how keen Aberdonians are on figures. I know that the support has gone down. However, my


hon. Friend says that it has gone down from 60 per cent. to 35 per cent. That is because we do not wish to have any profusion of additional bugs in Scotland.
What is the Assembly meant to be doing which requires all this? This is not generally realised in Scotland. We realise it. The Secretary of State and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise that the new Assembly, if it ever takes off, will not even do as much work as the Scottish Grand Committee, the body which is for ever being criticised by the media and everyone else. Yet I believe that the present set-up of the Scottish Grand Committee, with all its imperfections—

Mr. Sproat: We have not had one this Session.

Mr. Galbraith: We have not, But, fortunately, that will be changed next week.
8.30 p.m.
I believe that we shall find at the end of the day that having a system such as the Scottish Grand Committee is the only way in which one can have a different sort of administration for a different part of the country and integrate the legislation in a unitary State. I do not believe that it can be done in any other way.
As we go through this Bill we see the difficulties. I believe that we in Scotland manage not to badly—certainly no worse than the rest of the government in the United Kingdom. This is one of the things that I cannot understand. It is always being trotted out that there is something wrong, hopeless and bad about government in Scotland. Nobody has ever told me what particularly is wrong with it. The policy may be wrong, but what is wrong with the administration? In what way is the administration in Scotland less good than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom? To my mind it is, if anything, slightly better, because it has on top of it this very close connection with the Scottish Grand Committee. It seems to me that at present we manage not too badly with one Secretary of State and, as one hon. Gentleman has estimated, seven Ministers. I think that we have got only about four Ministers in the House of Commons. I do not count the Lord Advocate, not because I have

not a regard for him, and not even because he is not here. We have five Ministers.

Mr. Sproat: There is a Minister of State in the House of Lords.

Mr. Galbraith: I am not counting the other place. I am counting only those in the House of Commons. In this House of Commons we have 71 Scottish Members at present. This figure will be increased. Instead of having 71 Members, we shall suddenly have 210 Members of Parliament, instead of the existing 71. We shall have three Members of Parliament doing what one does now.

Mr. Dalyell: We shall have 220.

Mr. Galbraith: I am the son, grandson and great grandson of accountants, but I am not very good at figures. We shall have three Members of Parliament, one in the House and two in the Assembly doing what just one does now. We shall have I do not know how many Scottish Secretaries, Ministers, or whatever they are called—a dozen. Again, that is probably three or four times the present number.
In addition, if the amendment is not accepted we shall have assistants. Shall we have one assistant per Scottish Secretary, or two assistants, or three? We do not know where the process will stop. The question is, what on earth are these people going to do? The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) seemed to think that these Ministers needed assistants, but under the present set-up the Secretary of State already has his assistants. I believe he has five of them. One does not need another row of assistants beneath them.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend asked —I do not know whether it was a rhetorical question—what these gentlemen are going to do. It is perfectly clear what they are going to do. They will find justification for enlarging the number and finding things for other people to do so that they are more important.

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. and learned Friend, because he has rather spoiled my speech. What I had written down was "What on earth are they going to do?" My answer to that rhetorical question is that they have to justify their existence. I


think it was the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) who said that they were going to meddle. That is exactly what they will do. This is the tendency for all Governments. Governments like meddling. If they have not got enough things to keep them busy, they will find things to do. They will invent work for themselves. Governments will make new and unnecessary laws. They will interfere in all sorts of things in which it would be much better that they did not interfere. The real desire of people today is to be just left a little bit alone. I could not disagree with the hon. Member for Inverness more. He said that 35 people attended his last clinic, as he called it.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: When did you have yours?

Mr. Galbraith: I had mine exactly three weeks ago and I shall have another one, if the hon. Lady would like to come and see me, at 5 o'clock on Friday afternoon. The hon. Member for Inverness said that 35 people came to see him. I wonder how many came to see him on parliamentary political matters and how many of them came to see him about other things which had nothing to do with his job. This is the trouble. People do not know. If one has all these assistants and one thing and another, it will be even worse.
As a result of the proliferation of extra Ministers there will be more bureaucrats and more assistants to look after the assistants. This is the real trouble. There will be a demand for more money. That is obvious. There will be quarrelling between Edinburgh and this House of Commons all the time.
One of the reasons why we are supposed to be having this set-up, this Assembly, is that the existing situation is supposed to be remote. We are supposed to be remote. If the hon. Member for Inverness a few weeks ago was in his constituency seeing his constituents and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) is to come and see me, that means that we are very closely in touch and we are not remote. It is an absolute untruth to say that the present system is remote, except in the sense that there are too many officials and that it is too difficult to get to the seats of power. Having more assistants, with greater bureaucracy, and with the ten-

dency to have more interference, will create the very thing that it is supposed to be curing—remoteness.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I presume that none of these terrible things would take place if the Conservative Party in Scotland won the first Assembly elections. The fact that the hon. Gentleman foreshadows these things indicates that he has given up hope of that.

Mr. Galbraith: It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that. It is utterly and absolutely wrong. This would happen whatever party won the elections. Unfortunately, it is the nature of Parliaments to increase their power. That is what worries me. It is not only that; it is in their nature to increase the number of people involved.
I have just been reading a most interesting book on the life of J. Ramsay Macdonald, which I commend to all hon. Members. It describes how only about 30 years ago there was but one Minister responsible for Scotland, who was not even a Secretary of State, and that he had one assistant. We must look now at the great phalanx of people helping the Secretary of State. Is he doing the job any better? No. He gets weighed down with vast amounts of paper so that he cannot even think straight. I am not referring to the Secretary of State personally. However, it is part of the office.
Instead of having greater closeness to the people, which is the object of the Assembly, having the Assembly with this great paraphernalia of Secretaries and their assistants will mean more remoteness rather than closeness. That is exactly what the CBI fears.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The CBI?

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry. I made a mistake. It is not the CBI—although it might have been the CBI. It is the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, which is the same sort of body. It represents the business community. It represents the producers of wealth. It is because these producers of wealth are not being encouraged and because they fear what is to be imposed upon them that this matter is so very serious from the point of view of the man in the street. In a letter which I expect hon. Members have received today, as I have, the Chairman


of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce says:
Upright and honourable though individual bureaucrats are, they are an overhead on our society and their number and the number of their centres of growth should be diminishing and not increasing. What is wrong with the structure of our society that we should be so complacently contemplating their accelerated growth? 
There is the growth of not only bureaucrats but assistants. What is wrong with the structure of our existing government machine?

Mr. Fairbairn: It is too small.

Mr. Galbraith: It is not too small. That is the trouble. It is quite big enough. It is bad enough to have 12 Secretaries, or whatever the figure is. Perhaps the Secretary of State will give us an indication of the number of Scottish Secretaries he expects there will be and the number of assistants he expects, and how long he expects that number to last before it is increased.
It is bad enough to have these Secretaries, but they will have to have offices and some will have to have official residences, cars and secretaries, and the whole paraphernalia of Government that we have at present. On top of that, however, we shall have assistants, and they will have the same. As has been mentioned, it is Parkinson's Law. People may not like talking about "jobs for the boys", but, whether or not this means "jobs for the boys", there is one thing that it certainly means, and that is a vast payroll vote. We do not want to have any more of that.
If the Assembly is ever established, there will have to be Ministers but should there be assistants? Should we not let the Ministers do the jobs themselves? It is only when one does a job oneself that one picks out what is important. That is the only way to reduce the spate of unnecessary legislation and, with it, unnecessary interference and taxation. I very much hope that the Committee will support this amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) suggested that the only sensible criticism to be made of this part of the clause should be made by hon. Members such as the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead

(Mr. Galbraith), who are totally opposed to any devolution at all. I, too, am totally opposed to devolution, but I shall try to keep my remarks brief because we want to try to get rid of the end of this section of the argument before the guillotine falls, since this matter is less basic than some others. [Interruption.] I have not tabled any amendments, because I do not think it is my proper task to try to improve this Bill. I am sufficiently opposed to it not to want to make the arrangements more workable.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Surely that is a rather irresponsible attitude. If there is a chance from the hon. Gentleman's point of view that the Bill might get through, should it not be enacted in as good a way as possible?

Mr. Cunningham: No, I do not think so. The basic point with which we are dealing involves the kind of Ministers—I prefer to use that sensible terminology than the one we are pretending to use in this Bill—envisaged and the number of Ministers one should have within an Edinburgh system. The hon. Member for Inverness suggested that both those items were matters properly to be left to the Edinburgh Assembly to decide. I suggest to him that such a notion would come naturally only to a British person accustomed to an unwritten constitution, with no fundamental features built into it. If we had a written constitution, it should contain a limitation on the number of Ministers that one can have in a legislature. There is a common view that the fusion of the Executive and the Legislature is a historic and natural part—a terribly British part—of our habits. It is not. It was only around the year 1925 that the last vestiges of the endeavour in the early eighteenth century to eradicate the Executive from this House finally disappeared. It was only then that the last requirement on a Member of this House, when first appointed as a senior Minister, to stand again for election disappeared.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is there any written constitution that exists in the world that limits the number of Ministers? Written constitutions are normally about power rather than the nature of Administrations. I may be wrong in this view and the hon. Gentleman may shoot me down, but I should like to know the answer.

Mr. Cunningham: There is the American constitution, which limits the number to zero. There is the French constitution, which provides that when a Member is appointed a Minister he ceases to be a Member of the French Parliament. His place as taken by a substitute, who, in an election, works alongside the potential Minister for that very purpose. I suggest that this is a fundamental part of the workings of any constitution and it is as basic as the following question: how many votes can they buy?
Why do we have legislation applying to Ministers of the Crown limiting the number of paid office holders in this House? The limit is now 93, or thereabouts. Why do we have such a limit? That legislation was adopted in place of the old arrangement to which I have referred, when a Minister once appointed had to stand for election again. The reason that we have that limit is to keep down—at least to some upper level—the number of people that the Government can have on the payroll. At the moment we have far too many on the payroll. We have 93 on the payroll whose votes can, therefore, in all normal circumstances, be taken for granted, out of a normal majority party of about 300 to 350. It needs that many more rebels on the Government side of the House, whichever party may be in office, to overcome the dead weight of the payroll vote.
8.45 p.m.
This is an important feature of the working of any legislature, and, therefore, some limit ought to be imposed. The hon. Member for Inverness might say that that, of course, would be something that the Edinburgh Assembly should decide for itself just as this Parliament has legislation imposing a limit on itself. We do it that way because there is not any other way in which we can do it, because there is no superior Parliament and no constitution of Britain into which we can build such a provision, but there will be a devolution constitution for Scotland—namely, this Bill. I suggest that just as we are providing certain other limitations in this Bill with regard to the arrangements for Scotland, we should provide for this basic feature also within the Bill.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Since my hon. Friend has such an important

idea of his own knowledge, intelligence and integrity, will he not grant the same amount of knowledge and responsibility to Members of the Assembly, who will themselves, when they find that the Executive of the Assembly is taking away so much power—pass an Act of the Assembly to liimt the number of paid officers?

Mr. Cunningham: That would be my attitude if Scotland were becoming an independent nation, as, no doubt, it will in due course when this wretched Bill is on the statute book. However, it is not becoming an independent nation now. There will be superior law within which the Edinburgh system will have to operate. The question of the number of Ministers within the Assembly who can be paid is sufficiently basic a constitutional point that if there is a superior constitution within which the Assembly must work, this should be provided for. It is not that I trust this House. I do not. We have passed the Second Reading of the Bill with a majority of hon. Members against it, so one cannot have a more irresponsible bunch than hon. Members of the House of Commons. However, we do not have any alternative but to do the best we can with the poor material that we have. We cannot put it up to a higher constitution, and we have no means of entrenching the point that am seeking to entrench in the case of Scotland. We have no alternative.
I wish to make one more point. We shall have to amend the Ministers of the Crown Act, because, so far as I know, although the Secretary of State and other Scottish Ministers will be diminished by, presumably, five, no one has suggested that we should cut the number allowed under the Ministers of the Crown Act by five. We must get around to that. We cannot have an Executive going on with 95 paid votes when five have been eradicated. We must get an amendment down on that point before the Bill gets through the Committee.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has brought the Committee back from its feast of innocence to contemplate the facts of political life and of power as we really know them. He is, of course, right in saying that it is essential that, so far as we can, we should limit the quantity of patronage which


is at the disposal of a Scottish administration, because the creation and expansion of patronage, whether the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is aware of this or not, is the prime motive in the creation and maintenance of appointments.
I wanted to help the hon. Member for Inverness a little earlier, but he would not let me. So I shall now provide him with the novelty that he has not encountered before—an hon. Member who says that government would be carried on more efficiently with approximately half the number of Ministers. I say this as one who saw the efficiency of a Department for which I was partly responsible reduced by an increase in the number of Ministers. It happened, and it was because of the increase in the number of Ministers.
The effectiveness of government would be far greater if the size of the administration—I am not referring to any particular administration, and I make no criticism of particular individuals—were substantially less—let us say, reduced by a third—than it is now. That one-third is there because those who organise the party, those who are responsible for its discipline, tell the Prime Minister "You are not going to take away from us the very mechanism with which we operate. It is very valuable to us to have this number of appointments." Indeed, I shall watch jealously, as will the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, whether there is a corresponding diminution in the total number of United Kingdom Ministers if and when the Bill comes into force.
We say that the Executive is our creature. We should not be doing our job if we did not place a limitation upon the patronage at the disposal of that Executive. That is the last time I shall use the sham word "Executive". We know perfectly well what we are creating, and we seek to pretend by using other words that it is something different. We are setting up a Scottish Parliament. We are setting up a Scottish Government, at the head of which there will be a Scottish Prime Minister and not just Scottish Ministers but Scottish Cabinet Ministers. They will comprise the Scottish Cabinet, and will rarely be referred to by other terms. The "assistants" will be referred

to as Parliamentary Secretaries. There will also be Whips and assistant Whips, whatever is the definition to cover them. Perhaps they will be assistants; for I suppose that the Patronage Secretary is a sort of secretary, and that there will be assistants to that sort of Secretary. Anyhow, there will be Whips—senior Whips, junior Whips, assistant Whips.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in spite of all this paraphernalia of Whips of this kind and that kind, there will be no job for them to do?

Mr. Powell: From that fact, on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman, I shall draw a different deduction from that which perhaps he sought to draw, although I hope to carry him with me.
There is no doubt about what sort of animals these are. Look at how they come into existence. The First Secretary is the person who is in command of the majority; but then the Cabinet Ministers are appointed by the Secretary of State, acting on the advice of the First Secretary. In fact, this is a Cabinet with collective responsibility, dominated by a Prime Minister who has the right to hire his Ministers—that is, he says to the Secretary of State "Appoint A" and the Secretary of State must appoint A—and the power to fire his Ministers—they hold office "at Her Majesty's pleasure", and the tap of Her Majesty's pleasure will be turned on and off by the Secretary of State at the behest of the Scottish Prime Minister.
Incidentally, it is most objectionable from a constitutional point of view that the same person who is an executive Minister of the Crown, responsible to this House for executive acts, should also be the inert channel for the functions of the Crown in appointing and dismissing Ministers.
However, although the functioning of the Crown is screened by being put through the Secretary of State for Scotland in his inert form, it is still a Prime Minister installed by the Crown and a Cabinet of Ministers created by the Crown, at the behest of the Queen's chief Minister in Scotland, and all the appurtenances follow: the Cabinet Ministers will have their junior Ministers, and so on and so on.
There is a mischief in this besides the obvious one to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury devoted his speech—namely, that we shall have imported, but without the restraints that we have attempted here—ineffective as they are—the exorbitant power and appetite of patronage. The other consequences are more serious still.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was right when he said that the powers that we are allocating are inadequate to a Scottish Parliament, Prime Minister, Cabinet, Parliamentary Secretaries and the rest. They are unmatched. There is an inconcinnity between the magnificent structure and the mean furniture with which it is at present adorned. The result of that will not be to reduce the structure and the pretensions of the structure to fit the furniture. It is the furniture that will be magnified and increased. More articles will be wheeled in all the time to meet what the Scottish people will say is the least that is due to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Prime Minister, the Scottish Cabinet, and all the rest of it, Scottish Members of Parliament included.
By the way, very shortly they will not be called Scottish Members of Parliament. They will be called the Members of Parliament, just like that. We in Northern Ireland can give a tip or two to other hon. Members on the subject of nomenclature. I used to be startled when I paid occasional visits to Northern Ireland in far-off, innocent days—

Mr. Douglas Crawford: The right hon. Gentleman should know.

Mr. Powell: That is why I am telling the Committee—when I went on a platform in Northern Ireland and was told "There will be speeches first by the Members of Parliament". I would look round to see where the Members of Parliament were, and, not discerning any, would inquire what had happened. I would be told that these were the Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament. In the nomenclature of Northern Ireland they were and even still are the Members of Parliament. When a man went to his

Member of Parliament or sought his help, or, as he very likely would, called on his Member of Parliament, it was his Member of Parliament in the Parliament of Northern Ireland; and if anybody referred to the other sort of Members of Parliament, it would be said "Oh, you mean a Westminster Member. They do not count. They are not real Members of Parliament."
So it will be, if this is set up. The Prime Minister will be the man in Edinburgh. The Cabinet will be the Cabinet in Edinburgh. The Members of Parliament will be the Members of Parliament sitting in Edinburgh.
However, as the hon. Member for Hillhead said, how inadequate will be the limited functions allocated in the Bill to this new and grandiose national structure of government. Of course it cannot abide. The powers will have to be increased. That will be the chief concern, and a proper response to what is expected, of such a Government and Parliament—namely, to increase their powers. They will obtain the material for increasing them in two directions, from below and from above.
We who come from Northern Ireland have further news for Members in this House. Our constituents have for many years been destitute of all but the most vestigial relics of genuine local government. Even the smallest matters of personal and local concern on which they might expect to have the assistance of an elected representative have been transacted at a distance, and in the past five years at a very great distance—namely, the distance of this House. It might have been thought that successive Governments here would at least have said "What we must do is at any rate to restore to the people of Northern Ireland the local government that is taken for granted anywhere else in the United Kingdom."
9.0 p.m.
One might have thought that in days gone by and in more recent days those who occupy, or formerly occupied, Northern Ireland Cabinet seats and so on would have been foremost in arguing the urgency for that belated remedy to be brought to the people of Northern Ireland? Why was it not so? Because local government


powers would be at the expense of what might be the functions and powers of the Cabinet and the Parliament. Indeed, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) says, it would not be long before the Scottish Parliament—within whose legislative domain lies local government and the organisation and powers of local authorities—discovered how much more effectively it could perform for Scotland as a whole these functions which were dispersed, dissipated and inadequately performed among such unprofitable bodies as the regional and district councils.
That is one direction from which the new and elegant furniture appropriate for the offices of Cabinet Ministers can be obtained; but it will not be enough. They will turn round and confront their creators here, and they will say "Do you really think that now you have a national Parliament of Scotland, a Scottish Government and a Scottish Prime Minister who goes all over the world and is received as the Prime Minister of Scotland, you can leave us with these limited powers?" The Scottish Members of Parliament will tell us that this was just the start and that we must have meant them to have more, as otherwise we would not have created a full-blown Government structure like our own at West-minister.
We should be told "You created a Parliament and Government. You must take the consequences of your action. You must give the powers, scope and legislative domain that is appropriate to it, and you must give the powers of taxation that are appropriate to it". We shall be taken to intend the implications of what we do.
So I say that we should not be defeated by our own humbug. We should not be prevented by the humbug of talking about Assemblies, First Secretaries, assistants and the rest, from understanding what the thing is that we are doing. Can we that do it have the innocence to imagine that the unity of the United Kingdom and the authority of this House will be unimpaired? That is an absurdity.

Mr. Monro: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has described clearly the fears felt by many

hon. Members. As a result of that I can be comparatively brief in asking a number of questions. The Minister has an important chance tonight.
The amendments that we have discussed so far have been fairly incomprehensible to the vast majority of the people in Scotland. But now we have reached the section dealing with the practical operation of the Assembly in relation to the structure of the Cabinet—as it will be called—and the possibility of having a number of Secretaries of State and the way in which the Parliament will work. In the context of this wide-ranging debate on the Assembly I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of spelling out in some detail how he envisages the Assembly working.
He, with all his advisers from the Civil Service, must surely have sketched out the bare bones of an Assembly as it could be set up after an election, and he must have gone as far as to produce a rough draft of the sort of procedures that it is likely to use in its initial stages. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that this matter is, of course, entirely up to the Assembly. But, again, I think it most probable that the First Secretary, whoever he is, will naturally go to the Secretary of State for advice in some detail from the Scottish Office on the setting up and running of the Assembly. However, that would be stage 2. Stage 1 will be when we come, as appears unfortunately inevitable, to the referendum. Surely the people of Scotland must know then the sort of procedures and working that are anticipated for the Assembly, and which of those the Secretary of State will recommend to them.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the Government's ideas on these matters were contained in the Scotland and Wales Bill That was one of the changes that took place when it was decided proper and right to leave such matters to the Assembly to determine.

Mr. Monro: In a sense that is true, but if the hon. Gentleman really believes that the majority of Scots understood what was in that Bill, or understand what is in the present Bill, he is barking up a very strange tree.

Mr. Crawford: Just answer the question.

Mr. Monro: The Scottish nationalists chirp away all night as if they had nothing else to do. If they went away and considered what they were letting Scotland in for they would be putting their time to much better use.
The Secretary of State has the chance tonight to tell us just what is meant by his intentions for the Assembly. We now have the largest number of Scottish Office Ministers on record. I suggest that the number is limited only by the number of rooms available at St. Andrews House. We have, I believe, 10 per cent. of the number of Scottish Members as Scottish Ministers. If that guideline is continued to the Assembly it would mean about 15 or 16 Secretaries assisting the First Secretary. This is a matter of extreme concern for the people in Scotland who are trying to follow our deliberations on the Bill as they try to envisage the type of Assembly that they will have.
As the Secretary of State may know, a year ago I was certainly firmly in favour of a form of devolution for Scotland—

Mr. Crawford: Which kind?

Mr. Monro: —as I still am. I do wish that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) would shut up or, if he has sensible questions to put, stand up and ask them.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member said that he has was in favour of some form of devolution. I only asked which kind.

Mr. Monro: The quickest answer to that is to tell the hon. Member to look up the speeches I made in Scotland in the run-up to our debates.
The point that I am always most concerned about in my support for devolution for Scotland is the crucial issue of the two Executives as now proposed. I was particularly disappointed that there were no changes in the Bill in that respect. Tonight the Secretary of State has the chance to say what are the likely consequences of the clause to which we have tabled our probing amendment and on which we may come to a conclusion if necessary.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member used the word "clause". We are dealing with an amendment rather than with the clause itself.

Mr. Monro: We have been discussing whether there will be secretaries to assist the First Secretary. The machinery of this clause is very important in relation to how the Assembly may or may not work. That is why we have been talking fairly broadly tonight about the structure of the Assembly, and that is why we want to know the thinking of the Secretary of State concerning the number of secretaries who will be assisting the First Secretary in the Assembly. We have been drawing certain conclusions from the number of Under-Secretaries in the Scottish Office at the present time.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has experience of the Scottish Office. In the Assembly that he would like to see, would there be executives of any kind, or Ministers of any kind? If so, how would his Assembly operate? Would it operate through a system of committees?

Mr. Monro: I have felt that the concept of two Executives was wrong from the start. I should have liked to see the present Under-Secretaries—who have wide experience and a lot of responsibilities at the present time—built into a system that would enable them to fulfil the job in the Assembly. But that, of course, will not take place under the present Bill.
It is important that the Secretary of State should take the chance tonight to give an explanation of the work of the secretaries as envisaged in the clause, and say whether they will be in or out under the amendment. I think it right to emphasise, as was said earlier, that we are talking about a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Cabinet, and of people who will inevitably become the Members of Parliament in Scotland. This is the chance for the Secretary of State tonight. I hope he takes it.

Mr. Raison: I start by asking the Secretary of State the question that I asked the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) when I intervened during his speech a few minutes ago. There are now seven Ministers at the Scottish Office. The Minister says that it is six. There seems to be some doubt whether it is six or seven. If the present powers of the Scottish Office are to be transferred to the new Executive under the Government's scheme, it is evident that there will be at least six secretaries in the


new Executive. Why on earth should there be any need for assistant secretaries on top of all that? I hope the Secretary of State will deal with this when he replies.
I hope that the Secretary of State will also answer the very important point which was made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about what the Government have in mind on the question of the number of Ministers in the Scottish Office after the Assembly comes into being. There is, as I indicated, dispute whether there are at present six or seven of them. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that the number ought to come down to two. That is the kind of number that one might expect, but does that mean that there will be a corresponding reduction in the overall number of Ministers on the payroll?
An alarming thought has occurred to me, as a sort of appendage to the West Lothian question. If there are suddenly to be four or five Ministers from the Scottish Office without jobs, they will all be queueing up outside the Chief Whip's Office asking for jobs. We shall find them occupying departments concerned with English matters. We shall have Scottish Ministers administering English education, housing and so on, and that will be a further aggravation.
The House knows that I am one of those who cannot see any scheme of devolution working satisfactorily. I cannot imagine any way in which a devolved Government can be compatible with the United Kingdom as we know it. The House also knows that I do not want to have an Assembly, but that is not the point at issue in this debate. The question at issue here—apart from the one about Assistant Secretaries—is whether, if we have an Assembly, there must be an Executive as well. Is it possible to have an Assembly without having an Executive?
There was a very brief opportunity last week lasting about a quarter of an hour, to study this topic. On Clause 21 we have another chance to look at it. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Murton, because the question whether we want an Executive can be debated only between now and 10 p.m., and I think that the House recognises that it would be an appalling

misuse of the guillotine procedure if debate on this question were to be stifled merely because the selection in this section of the Committee stage picked out two important but relatively narrow points.
9.15 p.m.
In the past I have believed that there was one feasible way of operating an Assembly without an Executive. I remember that a few years ago when I edited the journal Crossbow I wrote a leading article in which I suggested that the powers of the House of Lords with regard to Scotland should be transferred to an elected body sitting in Edinburgh. In other words, one would make use of the experience and the relationship that has built up over the years between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords would continue its normal function but specifically Scottish matters would be transferred to an elected body sitting in Edinburgh. That body would play the same part in questioning Ministers and dealing with the legislation as the House of Lords plays at present.
But there would be an elected body. That is the best scheme for having an Assembly that there is. But it is still not a workable scheme.

Mr. Crawford: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us? Is that now official Tory policy?

Mr. Raison: I have only just told the Committee that I put this suggestion forward when I was editor of Crossbow nearly 15 years ago. There is no particular reason to suppose that either then or now the suggestion I put forward in Crossbow represents official Tory Party policy. We must look elsewhere for that.
It was interesting that when I put forward that suggestion the great newspaper the Scotsman published a leading article by way of rejoinder which said "Mind your own business. What right have you English people to be talking about Scottish government?" I have often been told that the English are very remiss when they appear not to notice that for some years there has been an argument in Scotland about devolution. Yet when I make some small contribution to this I am told by the Scotsman to shut up.—[Interruption.] It is not for the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire


(Mr. Crawford) to ask me, on the Back Benches, to expound Tory policy. I have given my own point of view. If we are to have an Assembly, which I hope we shall not, this seems to be the most reasonable way of approaching it.
I want to turn briefly to the question of what is wrong with the notion of an Executive. I put down an amendment, which was not selected, seeking to delete this whole clause. The first objection to the Executive is that it is another layer of government. Let me qualify that. It is another layer of political government. In reality it is not another layer of administrative government, if I may use that phrase to refer to the Civil Service.
It is true that according to the Explanatory Memorandum the Bill will add about 750 to the size of the Civil Service. To that extent it increases the layer of government. But one of the interesting points about the scheme which is not sufficiently observed is that for many years the belief was that government meant civil servants who dished out all the documents and administered the policies in detail. These civil servants are in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland, and that is where they will continue to be. The notion that they will come from London to Scotland is a myth.
When I asked the Scottish Office how many civil servants it had I was given a figure of 6,000 or 8,000. I was told that they were all in Scotland except for about 60 employed by the Scottish Office in London. Frankly, I should be very surprised if under the new disposition there are still not 59 civil servants employed by the Scottish Office in London. It is something of a myth to think that there will be a great picking-up of the executive and administrative parts of government and putting them in Scotland. They are in Scotland already, and people will not notice that they are any nearer, because exactly the same people will be sitting in Edinburgh doing the jobs that they do at present.
This leads me to another very important point raised by subsection (9) I am sad that it has not been possible to have a full debate on this, because I regard it as an important part of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will look at this. The clause says that the Scottish Secretaries will have the power to appoint

officers and civil servants. The Bill says that these people will become members of the home Civil Service of the State. I think that "the State" refers to the United Kingdom.
This raises all sorts of interesting implications. Will the Scottish Secretaries have the unrestricted right to be given civil servants who enlisted in the Civil Service on the assumption that they were to serve the United Kingdom Parliament, and who wil be told one day "We are sorry, but you are not going to work for the United Kingdom Government; you are going to work for the Scottish Assembly."? That seems to be an extremely dubious proposition. If I were a civil servant I might think that I did not want to work for the new and rather bizarre masters being thrust on me.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Raison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see any difficulty in saying to a large number of people, who joined the Civil Service on the assumption that they would serve the United Kingdom Government, that they are to be pushed willy-nilly into working under the Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not think that that would be different from the present situation. Any Administration here might decide, on any occasion, to make changes overnight. Civil servants are in the same position as people employed by private employers who might make a change of policy after a meeting of directors. I am sure that the civil servants would be able to take that in their stride and would either stay on or get out.

Mr. Raison: They have had imposed on them changes of status without consultation, but this is on a massive scale and is quite different from anything that has happened before. Conversely, the Scottish Secretaries will have the power to sign up anyone they like, for whatever function. Once signed up, these people would become members of the State Civil Service, to use the slightly unattractive language of the Bill. It seems a bizarre power that members of the Scottish Executive should have the power to appoint members of the State Civil Service. They are not appointing them to a


body which is solely to do with the Scottish Assembly; they are appointing them to the national United Kingdom Civil Service. This is very alarming and needs to be properly thrashed out.

Mr. Dalyell: There is also the problem of double loyalty. Is it possible for a civil servant to be responsible both to a Scottish Minister and a United Kingdom Minister? In many cases that would be impossible, like serving God and Mammon.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is absolutely right. In Clause 21 there is a whole series of major defects, doubts and problems, and somehow or other they have to be thrashed out. The monstrous guillotine under which we are working is making this completely impossible.

The Chairman: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member I must point out to the Committee that I have been extremely tolerant. The debate has gone very wide, but if we had made more progress on some of these comparatively minor amendments, there would have been more time to debate the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. This is in the hands of the Committee. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I have been very lenient.

Mr. Fairbairn: If there is one desire—although it does not appear to have occurred to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—which is central to the desire of everyone in Scotland, indeed in the rest of the United Kingdom, it is that there should be smaller, quicker, cheaper, better, closer government. That is what it is all about. If that is so we surely do not begin the task by multiplying the representatives, in some cases by three, in others by four and then add to the army of those whom the people regard as a weight upon their lives.
There will undoubtedly be 35 people who will come to the hon. Member for Inverness and say that they cannot get a tax coding from the tax office, or that they are having difficulty with the local chiropodist and a variety of other things. But the volume of complaints from others in his constituency will be about the Government interfering too much by removing freedom, freedom to spend their

money, to educate their children as they wish, to do what they wish with their life, to build their houses where and how they wish.

Mr. Crawford: The Scottish National Party wants to cut down the tiers of government in two ways—first by getting rid of Westminster for the people of Scotland and secondly by getting rid of the regions.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is a marvellously naive concept which the SNP has, that all that is necessary to have a respectable number of bottles on the wall is to knock off two of them. It does not appreciate that it cannot say that four wheels on a car is too many and therefore it is necessary to get rid of two. These wheels have functions. We have to decide how to run the machine if we restrict the number of wheels—[Interruption.]—The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) has made his intervention. He must stop muttering like a monk at prayer.
I believe it to be a natural and inevitable compulsion upon anyone with the power of any office in the bureaucracy, and frequently in politics, to attempt to enlarge his sphere of influence and therefore to elevate the strength of his position by enlarging the number of people who assist him. The little man working in an office with no assistant is not so important as the man in another office with 10 assistants. That is an inevitable characteristic. It was a characteristic of regionalisation. When that happened it was not that the pyramid got smaller, it was that a whole layer underneath it raised it up and so the environmental planning officer is now much more important than the former sanitary inspector.
Given this inevitable characteristic it is important to realise, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that what we are doing is creating a new Government in Scotland. The SNP cannot wait to play at Governments and have ambassadors and appoint each other as Ministers of this and that and run around the world shaking hands with representatives of a lot of funny little States and sit between, as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has said, Saudi Arabia and Senegal. That is all part of the power game. It is when it


comes to patronage that there must be a restriction. The great reform of 1832, the reforms in the 60-odd years which preceded it from 1770, were all intended to restrict the patronage of Ministers to give jobs to their friends and pensions to those to whom they did not give jobs.
We have unrestrained patronage in this Bill, and it is interesting to notice the changes in the attitudes of those who fanatically believed in the ideal of devolution and a directly-elected Scottish Assembly. They did not think of the implications.
It is not an Assembly that we are creating, it is a separate Government. It will not work to achieve the purpose of its intention which is to reduce the burden of Government on people in Scotland. It will merely increase it.
9.30 p.m.
The Scottish Office has a faceless, grandiose and altogether hideous building which is so suitable to its form in Scotland. In London, it has a magnificent building where Lady Caroline Lamb had many an enjoyable night with Members of another House. Nothing as human or as enjoyable has ever gone into or come out of the Scottish Office.
When we have this new Government cast upon us, we shall find that it will further enslave the Scottish people instead of freeing them. I do not find a decision which comes from Edinburgh a more warming one than a decision from London. To my mind, a Cardiff decision is no different from an East Kilbride decision. I dislike the imposition of government, and this Bill is an enlargement of those who have the right to interfere in the lives of the Scottish people. I hope that they realise it before it goes much further.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This has been a splendid debate and, although the amendment is a very narrow one, it has been symbolic of the fears and worries about this Bill of people in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
The argument was put precisely by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) in saying that this provision was significant in that it was part of the proliferation of government which would

take place under the Bill. There is no doubt that by having an Executive and as many Ministers as are proposed for the Assembly, there is a danger of Scotland becoming the most over-governed country in the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made a point about the dangers of having two Executives. It is an argument which the Conservative Party has made consistently. We said as much during our proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill, and we say it again about this Bill. We are opposed to a separate Executive.
With two Executives operating in one country, there is bound to be conflict, confusion and additional expense. In the Douglas-Home Report we read:
Unless there is to be confusion and therefore bad government, the duties of the Queen's Ministers must be precisely defined. We consider it to be essential that the Secretary of State and the other Scottish Ministers should continue to be the Scottish Executive.
It was made clear that there should be only one Executive and that it should be the present Executive—the Secretary of State and his Ministers. That would have been the case, apart from this obvious problem of having two Executives.
There is a further complication on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury did not dwell but which is one of the greatest problems. It is that the demarcation between the Executives is far from clear. Certainly it has not the crystal clarity of which the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is so fond.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider Schedules 10 and 11 and to note those matters which are to be devolved, those which are not devolved and those which are to be devolved in terms of executive power to the Scottish Assembly but are not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Before anything can be done, Ministers in the Assembly will have to look carefully at what they are allowed to do.
We see that agriculture of some sort is devolved, but that agricultural grants are not devolved. We see that part of the work of the Highlands and Islands Board is devolved and that part is not devolved. We see on page 68 of the Bill that the Executive has certain powers which are not legislatively devolved like the power to extend the areas of the Highlands and


Islands Board under Section 1 of the 1965 Act. There are many instances of a clear division of executive power between the Scottish Executive and the existing Executive. The Secretary of State must be aware that we are not giving additional powers or additional executive authority. We are making a rather precise dividing line which does not seem to make a great deal of sense.
One thing which has impressed me in this debate is the assumption from a lot of people that if we create all these extra Scottish Ministers, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to them, or Scottish Secretaries, somehow the existing number of Scottish Ministers, some of whom we see on the Front Bench, will disappear. It has been the general assumption that we shall create a lot of Scottish Secretaries and Assistant Scottish Secretaries, but, on the other hand, it seems to be generally assumed that, apart from the Secretary of State, who will become a kind of colonial Governor-General, all the rest will disappear.
Will the Secretary of State answer this point? If it is found that the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) or the other Scottish Office Ministers will suddenly disappear, we might find that we have a lot of Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh and perhaps the same number of Ministers, or even more, down here because of the problems of co-operation and co-ordination.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member is talking about duplication of activities and so on. Could he please tell the committee how he can reconcile this with what he was saying in his own October 1974 General Election manifesto, in which he called for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly with economic powers?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that my election manifesto of 1974 supported the decision of my party at the time, which was for an Assembly without an Executive, and it is an Executive that we are talking about at present. At all times the Conservative Party has supported the idea of Assemblies without Executives. The situation has developed since then.
What we want to talk about is what is before us at present. The hon. Gentleman is talking about changes. I look at his Bench and think of other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt). Here we have the danger of the devil rebuking sin. The hon. Member for Banff has been not only a member of the Conservative Party but a member of the Liberal Party—in fact, every party except the Ulster Unionist Party. Looking at his record, I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South ought to watch his back.
We have other problems—for example, the problem of creating more Ministers. This will undoubtedly be very bureaucratic. I think that the Minister of State would accept that if one has several more Ministers appointed, one is bound to have more civil servants. There is no doubt that, apart from the obvious factor of more Ministers creating more civil servants, there will also be the problem of demarcation.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider this matter. If on a Friday morning at 10 o'clock, after the Assembly is established, he and the Chief Secretary or the Scottish Prime Minister, whatever he is called, asked to see the Permanent Secretary in the Scottish Office on an urgent matter, to whom do they go? If one finds, for example, that the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth wants to see a leading Scottish civil servant and the Scottish Minister concerned or Scottish Secretary both want to see him, to whom do they go, or are they to have, as inevitably will be the case, separate groups and separate compartments?
I see that for the first time in these dull, boring debates, we have smiles in the Official Box. We hear laughter. The 12,000 Scottish Office civil servants are already thinking.
When one has Scottish Ministers and United Kingdom Ministers and a Department in which responsibility is divided, and they are responsible for plant life and we are responsible for the veterinary services and all the rest of it, where does the buck stop? We shall find perhaps parity to some degree, but we shall find the most appalling demarcation problems, and one will inevitably have a separate


Scottish Civil Service in practice, if not in theory or in law. There is no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Down, South so clearly told us, that it is impossible to try to arrive at this halfway house in which we attempt to have two separate executives with one Civil Service answerable in some ways to two Parliaments. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and will create confusion.
In his very helpful speech, the hon. Member for Inverness said he thought that we should leave the matter to the Scottish Assembly. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) has also said "Let us leave the number and the kind of Ministers to the Scottish Assembly. Let the Assembly decide". I think that we must make a decision of either letting the Assemblymen make up their minds on most things or laying down some kind of restrictions. We have laid down a precise division of powers. The Secretary of State is well aware of the executive powers of the Assembly. Not only are we having guidelines or headings but we are detailing those parts of Acts for which the Assembly will be responsible and other parts for which others will be responsible. In those circumstances there is no doubt that we should lay down some indication of limits.
At present we have five, six or seven Ministers, depending on whether one includes Ministers in the House of Lords, the Lord Advocate and so on. If we have more than 10 Scottish Ministers or Scottish Secretaries in addition, it makes a nonsense bearing in mind that there is no additional executive power because of the Bill. We are simply parcelling it up.
The other reason why we should restrict the number of Under-Secretaries, or whatever they are to be called, is that we shall have a competitive situation. I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would certainly accept this. If we have what is in effect a Scottish Education Minister in Edinburgh and a Scottish Education Minister down here, obviously they will want equality of knowledge and undoubtedly they will have a bureaucracy added on, with one or two more civil servants to provide more information.
In addition, because of the problems of knowing a mass of limiting and restrictive powers, there will be a demand for

a large number of Ministers or Secretaries in the Scottish Assembly. Perhaps I may point hon. Members to some of the devolved powers, and some of those powers that are devolved to the Executive but not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. It is not merely health, education and housing. We have such strange things as sex discrimination, race discrimination, criminal statistics, road traffic, pollution, land use and development, and grants to universities. These is no doubt that in a Scottish Assembly there will I be a large number of such areas in which there is a small amount of devolved executive power, and this will demand the appointment of a Minister or an assistant Minister, or Secretary or an assistant Secretary.
For those reasons, we on the Opposition Benches are very much opposed to giving a carte blanche to the Scottish Assembly to appoint as many members of its Executive as it wishes. Bearing in mind that the powers are precisely laid down, we think that there should be some kind of limitation on numbers.
I think that it was generally accepted by those who have proposed and supported the amendment that there is no doubt that this will be a bureaucratic measure and that the Assembly will add enormously to the cost of administration through the numbers involved in the next few years.
Another point of view has been expressed. That is, why we cannot just do away with the regions to make up for this. This was expressed forcibly by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) and was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The position is that this is what is called the embarrassment factor by the hon. Member for West Lothian. If there is a case for simplifying Scottish local government, let us do that now. Why cannot we say that if there is a better way of undertaking local government, let us go ahead and do it? The idea that somehow in a magical way we can make single-tier government by abolishing the regions is nonsense. Scotland has never had single-tier local government outwith the cities. There is no doubt that we could have single-tier local government, but only if we were to have areas so large as to make them not local government areas.

Mr. Crawford: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. The SNP seems to be in favour of having all the power going to the districts and giving them local income tax powers. That would be bureaucratic nonsense. If the Eastwood District Council had its own police service, and so on, and the Westwood District Council did not, that would be nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
This is simply not something that can be done easily. It might be possible by having a whole new tier of local committees, but that would be a new tier of its own. This is not an easy matter. It is not something that we can do with a snap of the fingers. We have had a Royal Commission looking at ways of doing this. It said that it could not be done. We have had a committee looking at it. It said that we could move towards this with a series of joint committees.
9.45 p.m.
It is no argument to say that one can set up an expensive and costly new Executive because that money can be recouped by cutting out a tier of local government. Things cannot be done as easily as that, even though the SNP thinks otherwise. It is on a par with somebody who buys a car this week in the hope that he will win the pools next week to give him the money to pay for it. If that person buys the car and then fails to win the pools, obviously he is in a mess. Therefore, to take such an easy line as to think that money will be saved by having a single tier of local government is no easy solution to the matter and will not work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), in an excellent speech, pointed to the danger of creating appalling confusion among the general public about the government of Scotland. There will be six categories of Minister to cope with. We shall still have a Secretary of State, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State—and if that is not the case I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us clearly in his reply. There will also be First Secretaries, Scottish Secretaries and Assistant Secre-

taries. People find the situation confusing at present, and I do not know what will happen when and if this Bill gets through. There will be the same appalling confusion in London.
Since people are to be subjected to an enormous amount of over-government, with all the extra cost and extra administration that goes with it, the Government must say what are the advantages of having another Executive. The right hon. Member for Down, South was right to say that there is a logical case for saying that there should be a totally separate Scotland. That might damage jobs in the area of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, but that is one of the consequences he will have to consider. It is more logical to take that view than to have a halfway house with two Executives, one subsidiary to the other and with no proper division of powers.
I ask the Committee to accept the amendment, which will put some restraint on this appalling confusion. Let us also throw out the clause, because it will create extra bureaucracy, will be most expensive, and will bring about such a sense of frustration that eventually it will lead to the break-up of Britain.

Mr. Millan: This debate has covered a number of amendments, although it seems to have stimulated discussion that has gone well beyond those amendments, and in some cases well beyond the clause.
We are dealing with the simple question whether it should be possible for the First Secretary to appoint an assistant to the Scottish Secretaries. At the end of the day it comes down to the question of practical administration. There are no restrictions in this clause on the number of Scottish Secretaries who may be appointed by the First Secretary or, more strictly speaking, by the Secretary of State on the advice of the First Secretary.
Let me explain why we have taken that point of view. We believe that matters involving the administration, what the Executive should be, and how many members should make it up are essentially for the Assembly or, more accurately, for the First Secretary to determine. We do not believe that these


are matters that should be laid down by this House in the Scotland Bill. There is no reason to suppose that the First Secretary of the Scottish Assembly will behave any less responsibly than will a Prime Minister in this place.
There may be a view—which I shall come to in a minute—that Prime Ministers at Westminster have tended to appoint too many Ministers. That is not a matter on which I should particularly care to comment, but it is a perfectly legitimate point of view to hold. In this case we shall have to rely on the good sense of the First Secretary, the Members of the Assembly and the Scottish people, because what is missing from much of our debates on these matters is any sense of the political reality or the political atmosphere in which these matters will be determined in Scotland.
There will be intense interest in the Assembly in Scotland. There will be great interest in how the First Secretary forms his administration, and the ordinary people of Scotland will certainly take a view about whether the number of Scottish Secretaries appointed is reasonable or excessive in view of the powers available to the Assembly. Basically, that matter is best left to the Assembly and the First Secretary.
Many of the arguments tonight were not about the particular question of the assistant secretaries but about the size of the Executive as a whole. I should point out to the Committee that there is not a single amendment on the Notice Paper dealing with the size of the Executive. If there had been, of course I should have been happy to deal with that particular matter.
In spite of what I said a moment ago, there is a perfectly legitimate argument —although I might not accept it—for the House to lay down restrictions, if it so desires, on the total numbers of the Scottish Executive, on a parallel with the Ministers of the Crown Act, which puts certain restrictions on the powers of the Prime Minister in relation of the size of the Administration at Westminster. That is a legitimate argument, but it is not particularly relevant to the amendments on the Notice Paper. It would have been relevant if hon. Members had tabled amendments directed towards remedying what they see as an excessive

openness in the way the clause is now drafted.
However, to attempt to remedy what some hon. Members feel to be a fault in the clause about the total number that may be appointed to the Executive by removing the particular possibility of the appointment of assistant secretaries seems, frankly, to be rather absurd. The number that might have been appointed as assistant secretaries could equally well, under the terms of the clause, and even if we accepted the amendment, be appointed as full Scottish Secretaries. One would be in the absurd situation of having accepted an amendment, ostensibly to reduce the Executive, the effect of which would be more likely to increase the Executive.
As a matter of practical administration it makes sense to provide for assistant secretaries, on the parallel of what we have here at Westminster, as the equivalent of Under-Secretaries. That is a perfectly sensible piece of administration. If I were to have to take a view as to whether the Executive should consist of a large or small number of Scottish Secretaries, it would be that it should be kept to a limited number, and I hope that the First Secretary will also take that view. I agree with hon. Members who say that a proliferation of Ministers or Scottish Secretaries with no particular functions to perform would not be a sensible way of running either this place or a Scottish Executive.
But these are basically matters for the Scots themselves—the Assembly and the First Secretary—to determine. I am giving a personal view. I do not believe that this is a restriction that we should write into the Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman, or do the Government, envisage that if those Ministers are created in the Assembly there will not be Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State in the House of Commons?

Mr. Millan: Those are not matters for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to give the answer. They are matters for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have always made it clear that when the Assembly is operating the rôle and responsibilities of the Secretary of State


will be considerably diminished. My personal view is that the number of Ministers is bound to be reduced. I have said that on other public occasions. Whether it has cheered up my ministerial colleagues at the Scottish Office, I do not know, but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Pym: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government's view is?

Mr. Millan: It is not a matter for a Government view. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, because he once held the post of Patronage Secretary, these are matters for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Brittan: What is the Prime Minister's view?

Mr. Millan: If the Committee wishes to have the Prime Minister's view, it will have to ask my right hon. Friend, but I doubt whether he would be willing to give it on this narrow amendment.
I was about to deal briefly with one or two of the wider questions that have been raised in relation to the clause itself. First, on the question whether there should be a Scottish Executive, it is intrinsic in the devolution arrangements that we are providing in the Bill that there should. I have found it difficult from time to time to understand what the Conservative view on devolution is. I had understood that the Douglas-Home proposals had been abandoned not only by the Conservative Party but by Lord Home himself in his speeches on the Scotland and Wales Bill. Therefore, I understand that these proposals are no longer on the agenda.
It is intrinsic in our scheme of devolution that there should be a Scottish Executive. That is not only the Government's view. I believe that anything masquerading aes a sensible scheme of devolution

to Scotland which did not include a Scottish Executive would be completely unacceptable to Scottish opinion. We are providing an Executive which will have considerable executive powers, but also considerable legislative powers. In that context, the arrangements provided in the clause will enable the First Secretary, through the intermediary of the Secretary of State, to make appointments to form an Administration that will adequately cover the various executive and legislative functions to be devolved to the Assembly, to which we shall come later in the Bill.

Therefore, the clause is a key clause. It establishes the Scottish Executive and allows a First Secretary and additional Scottish Secretaries to be appointed, and provides the mechanisms for those appointments to be made. It is a very important part of the Bill. I commend the clause to the Committee and recommend hon. Members to reject the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the double loyalties of civil servants? There is a very real problem here that has been discussed by the Committee.

Mr. Millan: There will be no question of double loyalties because the administrative arrangements that we have already considered will provide that any individual—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 276.

Division No. 30]
AYES
 align="right">[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Alison, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Carlisle, Mark


Arnold, Tom
Bradford, Rev Robert
Carson, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Brittan, Leon
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Kenneth
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bell, Ronald
Brooke, Peter
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brotherton, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Biffen, John
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cockcroft, John


Biggs Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony
Cope, John


Body, Richard
Budgen, Nick
Cormack, Patrick




Corrie, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, R.


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Le Merchant, Spencer
Ridsdale, Julian


Dunlop, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff WW)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCusker, H.
Sainsbury, Tim


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


Finsberg Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shepherd, Colin


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marten, Neil
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Galbrailh, Hon T. G. D.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Sromsgrove)
Stainton, Keith


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grylls. Michael
Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Hall, Sir John
Molyneaux, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Tapsell, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hannam, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tebbit, Norman


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint
Temple-Morris, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hodgson, Robin
Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Holland, Philip
Neubert, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hordern, Peter
Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Howeli, David (Guildford)
Ogden, Eric
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walters, Dennis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wells, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


James, David
Percival, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Younger, Hon George


Jopling, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg



Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. George Gardiner and Mr. Iain Sproat.


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Kimball, Marcus






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Ashley, Jack
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Ashton, Joe
Boardman, H.
Campbell, Ian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Canavan, Dennis


Atkinson, Norman
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cant, R. B.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bradley, Tom
Cartwright, John


Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clemitson, Ivor







Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol 8)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Radice, Giles


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Concannon,J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Corbett, Robin
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Crawford, Douglas
John, Brynmor
Robinson, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rose, Paul B.


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Ryman, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stallard, A. W.


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


English, Michael
MacCormick, Iain
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strang, Gavin


Evans, John (Newton)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ewing, Harry (Stiring)
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Thompson, George


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ward, Michael


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkins, David


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin
Weetch, Ken


Gourlay, Harry
Molloy, William
Weitzman, David


Graham, Ted
Moonman, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Welsh, Andrew


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, James (Pollok)


Grocott, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hart, Rt Hon [...]udith
Noble, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hatton, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Henderson, Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huytnn)


Hooson, Emlyn
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Horam, John
Padley, Walter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Palmer, Arthur
Woodall, Alec


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John
Woof, Robert


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Huckfield, Les
Parker, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesoy)
Parry, Robert



Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom
Mr, Joseph Harper and Mr. James Tinn.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest



Hunter, Adam

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 245.

Division No. 31]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Evans, John (Newton)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Anderson, Donald
Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, Iain


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McDonald, D Oonagh


Ashley, Jack
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackintosh, John P.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max


Bates, Alf
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan


Bean, R. E.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mahon, Simon


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Boardman, H.
Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, Austin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Moonman, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchanan, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hatton, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Douglas
Newens, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Noble, Mike


Carmichael, Neil
Hooson, Emlyn
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B ham. Sm H)
Orbach, Maurice


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Clemitson, Ivor
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Huckfield, Les
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pardoe, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Corbett, Robin
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert


Crawford, Douglas
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pendry, Tom


Cronin, John
Janner, Grevlile
Perry, Ernest


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice, Giles


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Robinson Geoffrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sever, John


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisie)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Luard, Evan
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Small, William


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)




Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Thompson, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Spearing, Nigel
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stallard, A. W.
Torney, Tom
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Stoddart, David
Ward, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Stott, Roger
Watkins, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Strang, Gavin
Weetch, Ken
Woodall, Alec


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wellbeloved, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Swain, Thomas
Welsh, Andrew
Young, David (Bolton E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
White, James (Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitlock, William
Mr. Ted Graham and Mr James Tinn.


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wigley, Dafydd



Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alison, Michael
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet
McCusker, H.


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
MacGregor, John


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Fox, Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Baker, Kenneth
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Madel, David


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mates, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Body, Richard
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brittan, Leon
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hall, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman


Brooke, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Carson, John
Hodgson, Robin
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Mudd, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Neubert, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nott, John


Cockroft, John
Hurd, Douglas
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cope, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Parkinson, Cecil


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Eveiyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Dunlop, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Eyre, Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhodes James, R.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Rifkind, Malcolm







Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Sainsbury, Tim
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walters, Dennis


Scott, Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Weatherill, Bernard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stokes, John
Wells, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin
Tapsell, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Silvester, Fred
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Sims, Roger
Tebbil, Norman
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)



Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Trotter, Neville
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Michael Roberts.


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 371, in page 11, leave out lines 11 to 18.

The Chairman: With this we may also discuss Amendment No. 383, in page 11, line 20, leave out 'subsection (6) above' and insert 'this section'.

Mr. Brittan: In coming to Clause 22 we reach that part of the Bill dealing with subordinate instruments. That part of the Bill provides a variety of powers which, in effect, either directly transfer or provide machinery for transferring the exercise of powers of a statutory kind to make subordinate instruments from Westminster or Whitehall to Edinburgh. In moving this amendment, what we seek to do is to explore the thinking behind the Government's decision to allow some of these powers to be exercised to the extent that they are.
In Clause 22 (1) the general provision appears that:
Where, by or under any Act passed before this Act, any power to make, confirm or approve orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate legislation is conferred on a Minister of the Crown, then, to the extent that—

(a) the power is exercisable as regards Scotland; and
(b) it is so exercisable exclusively with respect to a devolved matter;
it shall be exercisable by a Scottish Secretary.
In making that provision, the Bill is fairly clear that the order-making power conferred by statute on a United Kingdom Minister is transferred to a Scottish Secretary. But when we go through the rest of the clause we see that that simple provision is taken a great deal further. For example, in subsection (3) with regard to statutory orders, where a special procedure is prescribed under the 1945 Act, there is a provision that those powers shall be exercisable subject to such special procedure as may be prescribed by the standing orders of the Assembly.
There is absolutely no requirement on the Assembly to provide any such special procedure. Therefore, one would point out, in looking at the general question of the handling of the subordinate instrument-making power, that insofar as Par-

liament has provided for a special protecting procedure in certain cases, that is in no way reflected in the power conferred upon the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Secretaries and there is no obligation that a protection should be repeated, although there is an opportunity for it to be done.
The subsection with which we are concerned, subsection (6), deals with a form of statutory subordinate instrument, and we are concerned to explore the implications of that for two reasons. The first reason is that once again the question of the Royal Prerogative arises, and we have the opportunity, and it is appropriate and necessary to take it, of pointing out that the whole question of the formal position with respect to the Crown and Her Majesty in Council is not adequately resolved in the Bill. Once again we have the situation in which the logical conclusion of a scheme such as the one presented by the Government would be to provide for some kind of Governor-General arrangement. It may seem as though that is a purely formal constitutional, ceremonial matter. But it is not, because it illustrates once again the problem of considering who is responsible for giving advice to Her Majesty under the provisions purported in this Bill to be exercised by Her Majesty in Council.
In this case, we are discussing powers conferred on Her Majesty to make an Order in Council. One assumes from the way in which the Bill is drafted and the distinction made between this provision and the others that what is referred to here and what the Government have in mind does not involve any kind of parliamentary scrutiny and that it is a simple executive act which presumably up till now has been exercised by a United Kingdom Minister involving the use of the Privy Council in purely a formal way.
But we then see that, under this provision,
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for securing that, to the extent that the power is exercisable as regards Scotland and exclusively with respect to a devolved matter, it shall be exercisable by order and treated for the purposes of this section as if it had been conferred by that Act on a Minister of the Crown.
One assumes that, if that has any point at all, it is a curiously indirect way of transferring power to a Scottish Secretary.
The first question that I ask is: why it is done in that way, and am I right in assuming that, in saying that it shall be exercisable by order and treated for the purposes of this section as if it had been conferred by that Act on a Minister of the Crown, the purpose is not, as one might have thought from looking at the wording of the clause, to transfer the power to a Minister of the Crown but simply to enable subsection (1) to come into effect and to enable the power to be exercisable by a Scottish Secretary? I cannot understand why it is necessary for that to be done in such an indirect way.
My second question is why this provision for the making of an Order in Council as a means of creating subordinate instruments is, it would appear to be the policy of the Bill, to be eschewed for Scotland. Logically, if there is any exchange procedure, as opposed to a straightforward order of the kind referred to directly in Clause 22(1), the advantage of such a procedure should be conferred on the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Secretaries, and the separate arrangement instead of an order whereby decisions can be promulgated by an Order in Council ought to be reproduced in some shape or form in respect of the Scottish Assembly.
Why has not that been done? Is that also a reflection of the mysterious and mythical fact to which we had reference last week that in some way the Scottish Secretaries cannot be allowed to have direct access to the Prerogative?
The Committee is entitled to an explanation. It is not clear why this power to make an Order in Council is not given an equivalent form for the new Scottish devolved arrangements but, instead, is to be transferred in a curiously transmuted manner via a totally illusory transfer of the power to a Minister of the Crown, when the only purpose of transferring it to a Minister of the Crown appears to be so that by a preceding subsection of the same clause it should be transferred directly on in this curious conduit pipe to the Scottish Secretary.
This is a convoluted matter, but it is a convoluted provision, and the Committee is entitled to some explanation of what it is about, what is the intention, and how it relates to this mysterious Prerogative to which the Scottish Assembly and the

Scottish Secretaries are not to be given access.

Mr. Cow: Has my hon. Friend directed his mind to page 11, line 16, where for the only time on this page the word "order" has a small "o", and does that mean that this is not an Order in Council?

Mr. Brittan: That is the point. As I understand the position, the effect of that—which is what I am putting to the Minister—is to transfer the Order in Council provision, with capital "O" and "C", to the ordinary making of an order under subsection (1). What sort of an order it is transferred into is not clear. I am not being facetious in saying that there are orders and orders. Some orders are affirmable in some ways and some are affirmable in others. But this is transferred by Order in Council into a generalised type of order, with a small "o", and we have no idea. There is no provision here for further definition of the type of order to which it is transferred, so there is a certain amount of explaining to be done, and not just the nuts and bolts of it.
I recognise that it is conceivable that, although it does not appear in the legislation, there is somewhere lurking in some ministerial or Civil Service mind a rational structure into which all this fits. It certainly does not appear clearly in the Bill. However, it will not answer the real problem of how the whole question of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative and on whose advice it is to be exercised is to be solved in relation to the Scottish Executive. The fact is that there is a proliferation and confusion of the different styles and titles, which are on occasion airily dismissed by the Minister of State as being a matter of no moment, as if it were a piece of pedantry to ask for the meaning of a Bill to be explained. The whole matter is not explained.
The second point about subsection (6) is the contrast between subsections (1) and (6). In subsection (1) the matter is absolutely direct—where the
Act passed before this Act" gives a power "to make, confirm or approve orders, rules, regulations
which is exercisable in Scotland by a Scottish Secretary. It shall be so exercisable. There is no room for any discretion. That is the enacting provision itself.
However, when we come to subsection (6), it suddenly becomes discretionary:
Where, by or under any Act passed before this Act, power is conferred on Her Majesty to make an Order in Council, Her Majesty may
—I stress the word "may"—
by Order in Council make provision for securing
that it is treated as if it were conferred by that Act on a Minister of the Crown.
Who is to advise Her Majesty on the circumstances in which she should transfer the Order in Council into a power exercisable by order by a Minister of the Crown? Is that to be a matter on which she will be following the advice of a United Kingdom Minister or of a Scottish Minister? It is certainly not clear from the provisions of subsection (6), and it is a matter of some importance. If the answer is that it is to be exercised only by a United Kingdom Minister, what on earth is the point of the provision? If the United Kingdom Minister can advise Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Act which is referred to at the beginning of subsection (6), why not simply allow him to do just that? The United Kingdom Minister can cause Her Majesty to make the Order in Council—I do not say that in any way disrespectfully—if he is the person who is making the decision whether the particular powers shall be exercisable by order by a Minister of the Crown. If he is making the decision, he might as well exercise the power directly. I see no advantage in giving him the power to change one form of subordinate instrument into another form of subordinate instrument.
If the power to make an Order in Council transferring the power to make Orders in Council into a power to be exercised by a Minister of the Crown by means of the order—"order" with a small "o"—is to be exercised on the advice of the Scottish Secretary, why does it not say so? If there is some explanation why it does not say so, the Minister will agree that it is undesirable that such a power should be conferred by a side wind in any event.
10.45 p.m.
It may be that there is a scheme that explains how this interrelates. The point is not just to pick holes in the provision —because there are holes in it and parts
of it which no reasonable person, not even a reasonable lawyer, could regard as clear beyond a peradventure—but to bear in mind that genuine difficulties will exist, and will continue to exist, when the Government insist on enacting a procedure involving the creation of a Scottish Executive. They have not the self-confidence or honesty of purpose to provide for a governor-general or equivalent, but insist on creating a hybridised, bastardised constitutional nightmare that cannot be resolved. It was to illustrate that situation that I tabled the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish I could argue, in a convoluted way, whether there should be large "o's" or small ones, as does the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), but at this hour of the evening I cannot do it.

Mr. John Smith: You are slipping, Tam.

Mr. Dalyell: I turn to subsection (6), which raises some pertinent questions. Ceremonial is not the main thing that concerns me about the Bill, but I think it must be dealt with in the light of that subsection.
As and when the time comes, who will be host to Her Majesty the Queen? Hitherto, it has always been the Secretary of State. However, I think there will be difficulties on this matter between the Secretary of State and the First Secretary. I should like to know who will be responsible for entertaining the Queen when she comes to Holyrood House and who will be her chief host. Will it be the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the First Secretary of the Scottish Assembly?
On the question of ceremonial, I should like to quote some words of Lord Kilbrandon. He said that the State Opening of Parliament was "an English beano". He then got all steamed up about the Garter King of Arms and said that at the State opening of Parliament Scottish Officers of State and Judges were absent. He went on to say that Her Majesty's Judges played a part, but 18 of the Queen's Judges sat in Scotland and none of them was invited to the State opening.
There are serious issues relating to Her Majesty's own position, because she is on record as saying:
I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and


Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 4th May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 424.].
I submit that on these issues she has a right to be consulted, and I leave that matter there.

Mr. Graham Page: One can clearly see the shape of the clause as the draftsman intended it. He started off by thinking "Here we have subordinate legislation, made by the Secretary of State or Ministers, and we must do something about that if it applies to Scotland". So he started off Clause 1 by saying that any power which is conferred on a United Kingdom Minister or the Secretary of State by subordinate legislation and refers to a devolved matter in Scotland shall be done in certain ways in the Scottish Assembly.
Having got through five subsections on that, the draftsman suddenly realised, "Good gracious me! There are statutory instruments or subordinate legislation which are not named by a Minister or a Secretary of State at all. What on earth shall we do about that?"
These things used to be very popular in legislation—although they are not so popular now—and they were done by Order in Council. An Order in Council does not say who recommended Her Majesty to make it, and it cannot be pinned down on anybody except the unfortunate Clerk to the Council, Mr. Neville Leigh, who signs it. However, he does not recommend the Order in Council; that is done by the Minister or Secretary of State responsible for that particular function of government. So, instead of saying that Orders in Council, so far as they relate to Scotland and devolved matters shall be made on the advice of the Scottish Secretary, the draftsman, for some extraordinary reason, took the roundabout way. I shall explain my understanding of the way that he took, and no doubt if I am wrong the Minister will correct me.
First, there is to be a master Order in Council saying that wherever there are Orders in Council they shall be made by a Minister in future, not by some unnamed recommender and signed by Mr. Neville Leigh: they are to be made by a Minister of the Crown. But they are not to be made by a Minister of the Crown, because, having said that, one can refer back to subsection (1) of the

clause and find that they are to be made by a Scottish Secretary. That is a roundabout way.
But what about this master Order which Her Majesty may make—presumably on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown of Parliament? Apparently there will be a list in that master Order of the number of cases in which subordinate legislation can be done by Order in Council. Is this to be a full list? Will someone sit down and go through all the statutes to discover all the cases of subordinate legislation by Order in Council, or is it to be done by a number of master Orders, or will it be ad hoc on each occasion—that is to say, when there is a power to legislate by Order in Council the Order will start with a preamble saying that Her Majesty says that this can be done by a Minister of the Crown? That is what it seems like in subsection (6)—unless there is to be a master Order listing all the cases of Orders in Council and saying that they may be done by a Minister of the Crown, which means a Scottish Secretary. That is the problem that we must face.
Having done all that in this roundabout way, why do we have to destroy for Scotland other forms of subordinate legislation? Why can we not continue with an Order in Council for Scottish legislation? If the House in its wisdom has passed a statute which says that subordinate legislation under that statute shall be by Order in Council and not by Statutory Instrument made by the Secretary of State, there may be some reason for that. It may be a traditional or conventional one, but there is a reason. Now we are altering that and saying that if it applies to Scotland it is to be done not by Order in Council but by the Scottish Secretary.
My hon. Friend gave a possible solution—that a Scottish Secretary cannot recommend the Queen to do anything and, therefore, cannot recommend Her Majesty to make an Order. We are getting into a completely confused state when we reach that situation. It seems to me unnecessary to alter the form of subordinate legislation when it has already been decided in a statute that it shall be by order.
Amendment No. 383 seeks to delete the words "under subsection (6) above"


in subsection (7) and insert "this section". That means that under subsection (7) the master Order shall come before the House on an affirmative resolution in draft form before it is made. That is very sensible. If we are to have a master Order directing us that in future a whole series of Orders in Council shall not be Orders in Council, we should see it in the House. The point of letting us see it in draft and approve it is that it may be doing some harm to legislation affecting the rest of the United Kingdom. It will be splitting existing legislation, splitting the way in which we make legislation.
We are saying "Here is a statute which says that we shall legislate by Order in Council. In future we shall legislate partly by the Scottish Secretary and partly by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State here. It is right that we should see how that splitting is being done, both in the subject matter and in the way of doing it". Therefore, I am prepared to accept subsection (7) so far as it refers to the master Order under subsection (6).
But surely in the case of any of the Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council with which we are dealing we are being directed by the clause to split them. If they apply to the whole United Kingdom, as I suppose 99 per cent. of them do, we are in future to split them and exercise this subordinate power partly by the Scottish Secretary and partly by a Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. If that is to be done it should come before

the House in the same way as the master Order in Council would under subsection (6).
I complained some days ago, in raising a point of order, that the Bill in certain clauses, and certainly in Clause 22, trespasses on the laws of the United Kingdom outside Scotland, although it is intended, of course, to deal only with the law as it applies to Scotland. Worse than that, it trespasses on the ways of making the law. Here is a typical example in this clause. It is not merely a textual law of the United Kingdom that is being altered but the methods of making the law Here we have an example where we are told that where we have the old and trusted form of subordinate legislation by Order in Council, no longer shall that legislation be by recommendation of Her Majesty and Her Majesty taking the step of making the Order in Council, but that in future it shall be done by the Scottish Secretary, who has no access to Her Majesty and cannot advise Her Majesty to do it by Order in Council.
When we come to having to change the law in this way, it is not only hopelessly confusing—I hope that I have not caused the Committee to be more confused than when we started—but it strikes at the roots of our—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ARCHITECTS)

11.0 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of EEC Document COM(67)155, on the Mutual Recognition of Architectural Qualifications, and the Secretary of State for the Environment's Supplementary Memorandum together with Annex A to that document dated 4th April 1977 and Supplementary Memorandum dated 28th November 1977.
Tonight we are concerned with a draft EEC directive on the mutual recognition of architects' qualifications. This is to enable the free movement of qualified architects within the European Economic Community.
In previous debates on subsidiary European legislation the House has rightly insisted on having before it all relevant documents. This motion invites the House to consider an original text which the Commission tabled in 1967, an explanatory memorandum provided in April this year, and particularly Annex A to that memorandum. This annex is a radically revised text of the draft directive, which the Government made available to the Scrutiny Committee in April. Formally, that text remains a working document and is not an official Commission proposal. In addition, the motion refers to an explanatory memorandum dated this month to which I shall refer later. To complete the picture, hon. Members will have found in the Vote Office some other relevant papers, including two reports by the House's Select Committee on European Legislation, one in 1975 and the second in 1977, and the written and oral evidence which that Committee considered in 1975.
For our purposes tonight I direct hon. Members' attention to Annex A. This is the working draft directive on which negotiations have concentrated, and which the nine member States are asked to agree.
The draft directive is similar to others for the mutual recognition of doctors' nurses' and lawyers' qualifications. Its objective is to allow architects with the appropriate qualifications to offer their services anywhere in the Community. This will provide new opportunities for British architects to offer their services

or to practise abroad, and is something which we can all support. It is certainly supported by architects' professional bodies with which we have kept in close touch throughout the negotiations. They welcome the new opportunities the directive would provide. However, we must ensure that the directive does not lead to a lowering of standards. This has been our prime objective during the negotiations.
As is clear from the documents I listed, the proposal for such a directive has a long history. It was originally tabled as long ago as 1967. By the time Britain joined the Community the Six had reached a fair measure of agreement, although there remained some serious reservations. After our accession the proposal was put back into the melting-pot.
In early 1975 two decisions of the European Court effectively laid down that all discriminatory treatment based on nationality with regard to establishing and providing services was ruled out. As a result, the original 1967 document was entirely recast and became the draft directive which is effectively Annex A—the document that we are debating tonight. Its scope is summarised in the covering explanatory memorandum.
When the Select Committee on European Legislation first considered the draft directive in 1975 it drew attention to four areas in which problems were likely to arise. These were: the acceptability of the qualifications which member States put forward for recognition; the place of practical experience in architectural training; the setting up of an effective advisory committee and adequate professional discipline over architects from other member States who wish to provide services in the United Kingdom. In subsequent negotiations we have concentrated on these four areas and have gained much of what we wanted.
We have got explicit recognition of the need for practical experience at an appropriate level. In this country we do not believe that an architect can become fully qualified on the basis of academic training. We insist on a period of practical training to complement the university or other course. The directive will now allow us to require proof of practical experience from any European architect—no matter how strong


his paper qualifications—before he is put on the register in this country.
Secondly, we have agreement to a process of registration even where an architect does not seek to establish himself in another member State, but only to provide services there. This is essential to ensure that European architects are subject to the same disciplinary procedures as our own.
Thirdly, there is agreement on the role of the advisory committee in watching over standards in education and training of architects. The advisory committee is the means for our profession to be directly involved in examining and publishing the lists of those qualifications which are to be mutually recognised and for ensuring that they meet the criteria set out in Articles 3 and 4.
In this connection, Article 8 of the text before us has now been expanded so that if there are doubts about a diploma meeting the appropriate criteria the advisory committee will be invited to give its opinion. These provisions and, indeed, the setting up of an advisory committee are warmly supported by the profession in the United Kingdom.
However, I should say that we have not achieved everything that we set out to get. One outstanding difficulty concerns the central question of standards. The particular issue is the acceptability of the three-year academic courses provided in the German Fachhochschulen —its building high schools—compared with a minimum of four years and a norm of five elsewhere. There is now general agreement among the member States on a basic minimum standard of four years of academic training at university level.
In the United Kingdom architects have to do seven years to qualify for registration, with a minimum of four years of university training and at least two years of practical experience. These are, clearly, far more exacting qualifying standards than the three-year German courses, and the profession considers that to accept them within the terms of the directive, unless they are supplemented in some way to bring them to an acceptable level, will amount to an erosion of standards.
The Government agree with the profession. This is the issue that is holding

up agreement on this directive. There have been many discussions of this problem. On at least two separate occasions the United Kingdom Government's representatives, together with representatives from the United Kingdom profession, have met their German opposite numbers to explore the possibilities and to ensure that each side understands the views of the other.
The German Government have now made proposals to supplement the three-year Fachhochschulen courses by two years of practice which would include further courses of study. We and the other member States are now considering whether their proposals are adequate.
I recommend the draft directive to the attention of the House. I am anxious to have the views of the House since, subject to the satisfactory completion of the negotiations, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers is anxious to bring the proposals before a meeting shortly.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The Opposition join the Government in welcoming this draft EEC directive concerning the architectural profession. It is appropriate to congratulate those who have been engaged in the long-drawn-out negotiations which have gone on way back to 16th May 1967. Those who have represented the profession are due the thanks of the House, as are those from the Department who have been involved.
From reading the complicated issues involved it seems that considerable progress along the lines that we have required has been made. This is a tribute to our institutions and to the advocacy of those concerned.
The Minister says that the text now before us is a radically revised version of the earlier one. That is true. But, as he said, there are reservations about it which in the main reflect the views of the RIBA and the registration council.
The Minister mentioned the German high schools and the reservations which are held in that respect. If this is an example of the time required, there is a great deal to be said for looking for ways of speeding up negotiations of this sort, which are more firmly based than some of the provisional arrangements.
We may find that the other professions have greater difficulty than the architects


have had. I wonder whether the Government are seeking ways by which the procedures can be improved. That is a tall order, but there is no doubt that the procedure is long drawn out. I agree with the Minister that the concern of the registration council and of the RIBA is to ensure that architectural standards in education and training are in no way eroded.
The reference is only to the self-employed, but chapter 6 of the final provisions refer to the directive extending the benefit to salaried architects. This issue caused concern earlier. The difficulties are that there are no legal restrictions in the United Kingdom on the right of individuals, United Kingdom nationals or otherwise, to engage in architectural activities. However, the right to bear the title "architect" is protected by a series of architects registration Acts stretching from 1931 to 1969. It was as recent as 1938 that people were allowed to become architects without having to pass a test of ability. That rested mainly on practical experience. That is a course that most professional bodies follow in their formative years to permit those who practised hitherto to continue doing so.
I was interested in what the Minister said about the advisory committee. Certainly that has been a feature of RIBA practice for many years. Here there is considerably more work to be done. As I understand it, the RIBA adopts an elabourate procedure. The institute endeavours to monitor schools, of which I think about 33 are recognised. It endeavours to monitor standards at least every five years. I understand that schools are visited, that staffing ratios are considered and accommodation is inspected, and that relationships between local education authorities and Government Departments come into the inquiries that are made in an endeavour to help schools. This amounts to an inspectorate.
I should be interested to know whether it is likely that some such inspectorate, which has been recognised as necessary in this country, will be implemented throughout the EEC. Perhaps that could be a long-term objective. I do not say that it should be initially. It would be interesting to know the Government's views in that respect.
There are inter-recognition agreements for architects between the United King-

dom and the United States of America. There are links and relationships with about 170 schools throughout the world. This is a reflection of the historic role of the United Kingdom and one of its professional institutions. I wonder to what extent the United Kingdom's role in that respect has been part of the negotiations. Are we trying to protect, within the Community, the relationship that the United Kingdom has enjoyed world wide in architecture? Is there felt to be some responsibility upon the United Kingdom to ensure, in the long run, a wider applicability of the provisions that are now emerging?
At the European level, concern has been expressed about not only the German high school but other "parallel" professions. The consulting engineers are working in the same field in construction. It is thought that their activities might be restricted. I understand that the circumstances are peculiar to Italy, where, by registered architects, carrying out architectural work. I think that the directive covers that point, but in this country also we have chartered surveyors, who are not registered architects, carrying out architectural work. I would not like to think that some of our institutions are being less generously treated than their counterparts in the Community. Here one might be touching on the matter of acquired rights, and I think it is important for these considerations to be borne in mind. The documents do not reveal this. The question may have been dealt with, although not publicised.
Courses abroad vary greatly. The Minister referred to the Fachhochschulen, which I have also mentioned. I understand that in Italy a very small number of people are qualifying as architects. The construction engineering profession, to which I have referred, has a State examination which I understand is to some extent directed towards architectural qualifications.
It is to be welcomed that the Germans are proposing that their high school students should have a broader-based curriculum for the attainment of their professional competence. I understand from the latest document that the German Government have made proposals for supplementing and upgrading the courses, and that these are still being considered.


We are told that the text of Article 4 in Annex A is subject to revision to reflect the outcome of whatever is agreed on this point.
The Minister referred briefly to members of the Community wanting to come here in a professional capacity and to practise for a short time. This is the Prestation de Services. One of the terms set out in the Treaty of Rome requires a member State to grant a national of any other member State the freedom to provide temporary services in that country without submitting to the formalities required for establishment there. An architect can therefore provide services in any country repeatedly and throughout his working life. Let us suppose that a member of one of the Community States comes here and applies for temporary registration. Will it be possible for the registration council here to require a fee to be paid in order to cover the costs of registration? That point has not been covered.
I am very pleased to see that the five unresolved issues that were referred to in the earlier papers have in the main now been resolved. We certainly welcome the setting up of the advisory committee.
There are two general points that I wish to make. The most recent paper that has been put in the Vote Office, dated, I think, Monday of this week, was not signed by the Minister. At least my copy was not. The Minister signed the papers of March 1975 and 4th April this year, but there is only a typed name at the bottom of the paper this time. I am not sure what protocol demands, but I take it—[Interruption.] The copy that I have received does not bear the Minister's signature. The paper that the Minister is holding up looks like an earlier paper, which does not quite match up to the single sheet. What I have received is the single sheet dated Monday 28th November. This is a minor point, and I shall not press it. However, some of my hon. Friends feel that it ought to bear the Minister's signature, and I think it is right that the responsibility should be his rather than the Department's.
Another question that has been brought to my attention—I only repeat the information that has reached me—concerns an English text of the most recent direc-

tive. I understand that one is not available and has not been made available to the registration council or to the RIBA. Certainly no copies are available in the Library, nor have they been made available to hon. Members.
There is one copy of the French original, according to my information, but there is a difficulty in translation, and when one is dealing with issues of this sort one may find that compromise is necessary. That led me to look up the meaning of "compromise" in the Oxford Dictionary. It is quite an interesting point. The Oxford Dictionary defines "compromise" as:
To adjust or to settle difference between parties".
The French Dictionary—which is on the shelf below, if any hon. Member wishes to check it—defines "compromise" as:
An arrangement to submit an affair for arbitration. To compound.
I make the point only that it is necessary to have an English translation so that those who read through the documents know whether "compromise" is used in the English sense or the French sense, because the examples that I have given show some differences in the significance of the use of that word.
It is unfortunate that no English version is available. I think that is a reasonable criticism to make. I say no more than that. But when those who have been involved in this have given so much time to it—I know that this is tied up somewhat with the order of proceedings in the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): That does not affect the qualifications of architects.

Mr. Jones: That is true. We are considering the qualifications of architects, but I do not think the debate is solely about that, otherwise I would have great difficulty in saying what the qualifications of architects were. As I understand it, we are dealing with this very complicated "compromis" or "compromise", whereby the differing practices of this important profession are to be harmonised within the Community.
I found it very interesting to read the closing paragraph of the annual report of the European affairs committee of the Royal Institution of British Architects


and the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom. The chairman was Mr. A. J. Gordon. The conclusion stated that
It is easy to get depressed at the slowness of progress on the directives and the risks of decisions being made for political rather than professional reasons. But anyone acquainted with international negotiations knows that the problems of language and of national patterns of education, law and practice, all valid in their own circumstances, make it extremely difficult to reach agreement at all quickly. Patience and a willingness to discover the reasons behind the difficulties is essential. Often it is UK practices and customs which bewilder our European colleagues. It is always necessary to retain the image of the long-term objectives in the middle of short-term frustrations.
That was a plea from the heart from those who have been involved in these long-drawn-out negotiations. I am not sure whether Mr. Gordon has been chairman all the time. It is good to recognise that those who have been involved in these procedures are now well on the way to success. It is a tribute to all those involved in these time-consuming negotiations. They are to be congratulated and complimented on it.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: The House knows that I am a director of a house-building company, although I am not and have never been an architect, and I therefore have no direct financial interest in this matter.
As the Minister has said, we do not need to waste too much time on Document 67/155, which was obviously totally unsatisfactory for British conditions. This new draft directive is a much more serious proposal, and I should not like anyone in the House to think that it is not an important matter, or that the directive is a waste of time. I certainly envisage EEC architects wanting to come here to practise, and vice versa.
During the EEC property boom between 1971 and 1973 many British developers went to the EEC, particularly to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Usually, when they were there they tended to retain local professional architects, although some took their own quantity surveyors and project managers because those disciplines were not then usual in the EEC construction process.
Nor should we underestimate the importance of the architect in the EEC. Take the Federal Republic of Germany,

for example. There are relatively few general contractors there. The industry is organised largely on a trade-contractor basis, with the representative of the architect on the site—the "bauträger"—co-ordinating which trade contractors should be working on the site at any one time.
The building regulations there vary from region to region, and the use of an architect, with the very heavy indemnity policies statutorily required, is virtually universal. There are between 40,000 and 120,000 architects in West Germany, depending on whether one regards the qualification of the Fachhochschulen as genuine for the title of architect.
We would say that many of their owner-occupied houses were over-specified, but if a British developer did try to build houses there, which some of us, myself included, seriously contemplated in 1972, we would need an architect to design them, which we do not necessarily need in this country. A British architect, able to work with a British developer but speaking German and knowing the German building laws, would have been invaluable then, and I have no doubt that he will be invaluable in future.
This is far from a theoretical or impractical matter. It could happen and probably will happen, so it is important to get it right. In my view it is certainly not right at the moment, as the Minister half-conceded in his opening remarks. The proposals to recognise the courses of the Fachhochschulen in their present form are totally unacceptable and should be resisted by the Government.
The RIBA, in the material that it has submitted to me, said that the RIBA and the ARCUK still hope that the Germans will be persuaded to raise their standards. If they do not, they feel that the low standard will be totally unacceptable, even on the basis of not having a directive.
If this directive goes through, the people concerned will remain architects, and their training will obviously have been influenced by the theoretical and practical considerations of Article 3.
What concerns me apart from this Fachhochschulen question is not the transferability of degrees and diplomas —that has been going on in Europe since the time of the wandering scholars


in the Middle Ages—but rather the vague and ill-defined proposals in Article 20, which the Minister's supplementary memorandum to the Scrutiny Committee says remain unfinalised. These are the proposals for what, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) pointed out, the Treaty of Rome calls "prestation de services" or provision of services.
At present, the use of the word "architect" is illegal in Britain for any persons other than those on the register of architects maintained by the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom —ARCUK—set up by an Act in 1931, amended in 1938. There are about 25,000 registered people, of whom 22,000 are also members of the RIBA. As such, they are bound by codes of professional conduct which lay down certain detailed and specific requirements.
Under draft Article 20 of the directive, a member State which requires of its own nationals that they be authorised by, members of, or registered with, a professional organisation or body has to dispense with that requirement, though the person concerned is apparently to be subject to the rules of conduct of a professional or administrative nature that apply in that member State. Now, what can that mean?
Let us suppose that Herr Braun, with an acceptable architectural qualification from one of the technische hochschulen listed in Article 10, comes to Britain to design an extension to a German-owned company's factory in, say, Birmingham. Would he be required to register with ARCUK? As I understand Article 20, the answer is "No". If not, and if he followed the procedure of declarations and documentation listed in Article 20 (2) and (3), how could he, in practice, be bound by ARCUK's code of professional conduct?
Let us move to a more topical and sensitive issue. Under both the ARCUK and the RIBA codes—which are virtually identical—an architect is required in rule 3.2 to
uphold and apply the recognised Conditions of Engagement".
Rule 3.3 specifically rules out competition on price between architects. As the House knows, the Monopolies Commis-

sion has recommended the abolition of the mandatory fee scale system and, in a half-baked and largely discredited report, has recommended a voluntary fee scale system instead. It would be neither appropriate nor in order for me to say too much about the report now, though I believe that implementation of its recommendations would be bad for architects, architecture and the public interest. I hope that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and the Director General of Fair Trading will do nothing in a hurry on this matter.
Changes may be possible, but not along the lines of that draft report. Let us suppose that nothing is done and that the present rules regarding fees remain unchanged. Would Herr Braun, even though he had not joined ARCUK or RIBA and was not bound by their code of practice, be required to stick to the mandatory fee scale contained in the conditions of engagement? If not, would he be allowed to engage in price competition at a time when his English colleagues could not? If he were bound in some way, how could this be enforced? Can someone be
subject to the rules of conduct 
in the words of the draft Article 20,If he is not required to be a member of the organisation responsible for the rules and, indeed, is not a member? I suggest that it would be difficult to justify such a situation in law or equity.
Indeed, in law, the directive will presumably override the Architects Registration Act, since Herr Braun could not legally call himself an architect in Britain. unless he had registered or unless the directive allowed him to do so—at which hon. Members will prick up their ears for another auto-da-fé against the federalist heresy.
The preamble to the directive and Article 20 needs fairly substantial redrafting and should certainly not pass in its present form. I suggest that we should be working on three basic principles. First, it is desirable that appropriately-qualified people should be allowed to practise as architects in other EEC countries provided that their qualifications really are appropriate.
Secondly, they should be allowed to exercise those qualifications in another country only if they register as architects


under the laws and procedures of the host country and are specifically bound by any codes or rules that bind other registered architects.
Thirdly, registration should not be refused to anyone who can produce the requisite documentation, but should be a largely automatic process, unless there are grounds for believing that there has been some illegal or disgraceful behaviour, as suggested in Articles 15 and 16.
I suggest to the Minister that if that general registration procedure were followed there would be no question but that architects would all be working on the same fair basis of competition in the EEC. But if the requirements were to be "abolished", as the preamble on page 5 says, a potentially shambolic situation could arise, which would not be in the wider public interest. I do not know whether people take much notice of what the House says in these matters—I hope they do—or, indeed, whether this directive will ever become law, but I hope that it will be felt that the few practical points that I have made have not come amiss in the House's contribution to the important issues involved.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sure that we would all commend my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on his expert knowledge of this subject and of the specifics of this directive. I want to intervene to add one or two words to what has been said particularly by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but also by the Minister. This is one example of the late-night scrutiny that this House tries to carry out, effectively, half-effectively, or not very well; but at least this House tries to do it, whereas other Parliaments do not.
This is another example of a piece of important harmonisation emanating from the Commission. In this case it is not a standard harmonisation of Common Market norms and rules and regulations, or the commercial regulations that we are used to seeing from the Commission; it concerns the harmonisation of professional qualifications, which is still very much foreign territory for us in this Parliament and for the Commission and the European Community, and therefore it needs to be treated with the degree of

care and special concern that we always strive for.
The only occasion on which we had this sort of thing before was in the debate, some years ago, on the harmonisation of qualifications for doctors practising in the member States, and the related papers concerning dentists. But in this case different arguments arise.
We are all grateful for what my hon. Friend said in highlighting some of the arguments. We note that the RIBA and the registration council are admittedly very much in favour of the principle and the broad outline of the directive—by which I mean the latest document rather than the original document—but we are somewhat uneasy about several points of detail.
From the point of view of the document itself and its presentation, this House is labouring under a disadvantage, in that we are relying on a text that originally was in a different language—one of the seven authorised languages of the Community. This may seem a small point, but it is a significant one, which confronts Ministers when they go to meetings of the Council to determine the final outcome of these directives.
The acceptability of many clauses depends largely on the wording of the translation originaly made. The final text will not be available until after the debate. We see here a specific example of the disadvantage under which we are continually labouring.
I want to make a point about the advisory committee and to say a word in support of the stand of the RIBA and the registration council on this matter.
The concept that there should be a provision for regular visits by legally endowed inspectors with full discretionary powers to maintain the standards in architectural schools is essentially foreign to the other member States. We know that the British institutions—I am not being simply chauvinistic here—have effectively the highest standards in Europe. It is not realistic to expect that such an inspection system is likely to be established by the directive. At least we have the reserve option in Article 2. It is possible to return to that system later. I hope that when the Minister goes to the Council of Environmental Ministers he will be able to argue this point strongly.


There is also the question of the Part 3 examination and its relationship to the two-year practical training scheme for British architects before final registration. This is a wholly desirable element in the total examination setting and I am sure that most people—many in the member States—would privately agree, although there is an official stance against this, that the aim of the practical training—to test students in legal matters, contract law, byelaws, administration, binding together academic and practical training —is notably absent in the other member States. I believe that they lose substantially as a result.
It is a pity that there is not a more positive attitude in the other member States about what we regard as a wholly indispensable item. The RIBA and the registration council are to be congratulated on being seemingly determined not to abandon their traditional adherence to their high standards. It reamins to be seen what will happen. The directive is not yet agreed. More discussion has to take place. Perhaps the Minister will say how he feels this will be finally decided.
The Fachhochschulen have been dealt with in the debate and I do not intend to add to what has been said, except to express my anxieties. One important point not touched on so far is the question, which arose in the doctors' harmonisation directive, of language qualifications. Article 26 says that
Member States shall see to it that, where appropriate, the persons concerned acquire, in their own interest and in that of their clients, the linguistic knowledge needed to follow their profession in the host country.
That is framed in a wide manner. I wonder what it will mean. I imagine that this could be one of the most important practical demonstrations of the future of realistic harmonisation of standards and freedom to establish by architects from other countries.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Freeson: I shall take close note of the points that have been raised and study the text after the debate. All points will be borne in mind in the continued negotiations. There are one or two points with which I can reasonably deal now. The hon. Members for Daventry (Mr.

Jones) and Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) touched on the creation of an inspectorate system under the aegis of the proposed advisory committee system for checking on standards in schools. As the document indicates, this is a matter for consideration. I only say at this stage that I feel a little diffident about this. We have enough problems in trying to establish some common ground on the areas that have been referred to already. It is a worthwhile objective to which to return at some stage, but I do not think that we want to pop it back into the negotiations in the immediate future.
The hon. Member for Daventry referred to the position in Italy. The directive relates only to architects and not to associated or overlapping professions. There is recognition in the draft of the special position in Italy. We had to take account of that because of the professional organisation in that country. Beyond that, we shall not be covering those people who, to quote the hon. Gentleman, do architectural or associated work in co-operation with architects or for architects. We have consulted the professions here, and they are content with our dealing with this matter of the Italian engineers in the way that we have. We have a formal Council statement that the position of other professions is not affected.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to the rules about temporary registration. These have not yet been worked out, but it will be difficult to gain support for the idea of fee charging. I think that we have done pretty well to get temporary registration at all. The hon. Gentleman made an illustrative point, and I adopt it for the purpose of my reply. Herr Braun would have to register in this country if he came here to design the extension of a factory or other building owned by a German company here. He would have to come under the temporary registration scheme.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how much further down the road we should go in the control of standards, and whether we should pursue the registration of foreign architects within our own national system. I take note of what he said. However, if we open up too many of these deeper questions at this stage we shall make it much more difficult to


establish some common ground on the areas that we are still seeking to negotiate. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall bear it in mind.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is the Minister's proposal for temporary registration with the Department of the Environment or with the Commission?

Mr. Freeson: It will be with our own profession, in effect. What has so far developed in this has been done in full consultation with the registration council and the RIBA. But it is not only a matter of consultation. They are in agreement with the line that we have taken so far. We shall have to see how the rules work out in detail, but clearly we shall develop that further in close consultation with them.

Mr. Arthur Jones: If there is to be registration, surely there would be no objection to a reasonable fee. I realise that we have done well to get this far, but does the Minister feel strongly about this?

Mr. Freeson: I am sure that people in Brussels read Hansard and that they will be aware of that view. It is a fair point to make, but we have enough difficulty, without our loading in additional problems. However, that is not to say that it is an unreasonable argument. We must keep our eye on the ball. There is the central problem that every hon. Member has raised about standards, to which I have referred. That is the thing on which to resolve.
The point about the text was mentioned by several hon. Members. It has changed almost weekly as the negotiations have progressed. However, our architects now have the final full text in English. They got it this morning, as soon as we got it. What will happen week by week in the future is another matter.
There is one final point as a matter of information. I was asked by the hon. ember for Harrow, East, in effect, when I would expect us to be representing whatever views we finally come to in the final negotiations at Brussels. That will not be for me; it will be for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at ministerial meeting level. That is expected to take place on 19th December, but prior to then there will be further negotiations,

as I have indicated, both through the usual channels and at EEC ambassadorial level. At this stage we shall have to wait to see how things develop on 19th December. We shall certainly bear in mind all the points that have been put to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of EEC Document COM(67)155, on the Mutual Recognition of Architectural Qualifications, and the Secretary of State for the Environment's Supplementary Memorandum together with Annex A to that document dated 4th April 1977 and Supplementary Memorandum dated 28th November 1977.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I beg to move,
That, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 as amended by the said Act of 1948 and by the Resolutions of the House of 17th November 1955, 7th March 1957, 17th May 1961, 9th March 1965, 4th May 1971, 1st August 1972, 29th November 1974, 27th November 1975 and 8th November 1976 be varied as from 1st December 1976 as follows:

(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as so amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—

'1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,140 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £2,050 per annum, whichever is the less;
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,200 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £3,110 per annum, whichever is the less';
(b) for paragraph 2 of the said Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

'2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £570 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her


income up to £1,480 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,100 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £2,010 per annum, whichever is the less';
(c) in paragraph 2A of the said Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:—

'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £570 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £1,480 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,100 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £2,010 per annum, whichever is the less.'
The motion concerns something that the Committee on the Members' Fund is trying to do to keep in step with the inflationary trend. If one looks back at the Order Paper one sees what has happened over the last few years. It would be as well to say that many hon. Members are anxious that these improvements should be made as soon as possible.
I should like to mention a few details, without taking up too much time. The number of recipients of grants at present is as follows: ex-Members, 18; widows, 31; hardship cases, seven. The income of the Fund is as follows: Members' contributions, £15,000 per annum; grant in aid, £15,000 per annum; interest from investments, £22,500 per annum. That makes a total of £52,500. Payments from the Fund total £38,559 per annum. Additional expenditure arising from the motion will be £6,000.

Question put and agreed to.

PETITION

Launderettes

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a humble petition on behalf of the

National Association of the Launderette Industry and users of launderettes. This petition has been signed by nearly 200,000 customers of launderettes, many of them single people and pensioners without washing machines in their own homes, who, as a result of newly introduced effluent charges on launderettes by regional water authorities under a reclassification of launderettes as a trade rather than a service industry, will be paying a double charge for their water treatment, since they already pay the same sewerage and environment charges, based on rateable values, as other householders.
The petition showeth
That the implementation by the water authorities of the provisions of the Water Act 1973, Section 40 and Schedules 8 and 9, causes your humble petitioners great concern because the imposition of effluent charges will involve additional new costs to launderette users, many of whom, if they could afford washers or had the facilities at home for washing, would pay no extra charge for discharging their washing water into the drains.
Wherefore your humble petitioners pray that your Honourable House pass such legislation as will: restore immediately the exemption granted to launderettes by virtue of Section 4(4) of the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 and Section 65 of the Public Health Act 1961, which exemptions were accepted by the Armour Committee Final Report of Trade Effluents Sub-Committee of the CAWC (1960) paragraphs 122–124, 175(19). And further that your humble petitioner would by reason of the charge be paying twice for discharging their effluent, once through the rates, and once in the launderette, despite the provisions of the Water Act 1973 Part III, Section 30(6) directing the water authority not to show undue preference to or discriminate unduly against any class of person, as they consider the charge discrimination against themselves.
The petitioners are looking to Parliament to redress this anomaly. Those who have signed the petition come from all parts of the country and represent, in addition, many people who use self-service coin-operated launderettes and who may not have had an opportunity to sign the petition. The total number of persons represented by the petition could be more than 600,000, and I would advise the House that this service industry employs 20,000 people.
The petitioners feel very strongly on this matter and, as regular users of launderettes, have given their support to launderette owners by signing this petition.
I am grateful to the Minister for being present tonight, and I conclude with the words of the petition:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY TEACHERS (PAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject of a pay anomaly that has not received quite the same attention as has the pay anomaly to the firemen. It may seem strange that I should seek to do this in the atmosphere generated by the Government's attempt to hold the line against pay increases above 10 per cent. This is a small and not a very popular part of the community in relation to increases in pay over the average, but the mere fact that it is a small group and a group that may not be much favoured by the general public does not mean that it has to suffer injustice. I think that along with a number of other small groups, of whom the methodist ministers are one, the pay anomaly in this case is perhaps greater than that of anybody else since it has persisted longer than the first stage of the current pay policy.
This matter began in the period between 1974 and 1975, when the Government had no particular pay policy other than to maintain a 12-month difference between settlements. It was difficult to impose that on most of the country, since it did not have the voluntary assent of the TUC. It was in that period that this anomaly arose, and it has been going on ever since. Every successive Secretary of State for Education and Science has conceded that this anomaly exists and that an injustice has been perpetrated from which university teachers should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity. The only thing that lies between the Minister and me is "when" that earliest opportunity will be.
I have before me a copy of the handout given by the Department in response to the recent reply from the university teachers. I shall read it because it is vital to that group of university teachers.
The history of this matter is not in any doubt. All sides are agreed that the way in which it arose was that between 1974 and 1975 there was a substantial award to teachers in schools and further education establishments, other than universities, under the Houghton Committee. In that year further education teachers received 36 per cent. The average settlement for the British industrial worker was 27 per cent. The university teachers received 8 per cent. and not unnaturally went back to the Department of Education and Science and asked for a further increase to bring them into line, but they were met by the 12-month rule.
The matter then went to arbitration, and the teachers were awarded a substantial increase, based, to some extent, on an assurance from the Department that they would receive in addition a cost of living increase estimated by the Department's negotiator at about 20 per cent. In the event they were met by the first stage of the pay policy and the increase finally represented no more than about 4 per cent. The disparity has existed ever since.
For the last two years most university teachers, except those in the higher ranges and professional posts, have been receiving substantially less than their competitors in further education and yet have been teaching people who, on the whole, receive more.
I believe in an incomes policy not to restrain incomes in a period of economic necessity but as part of a general policy of redistribution of income, and on that basis would accept the narrowing of differentials. However, it is now clear that the country, the TUC, the CBI and —I regret—the Minister do not accept that. All are agreed that everybody should be allowed to get back their differentials. If that is so the case for the university teachers is overwhelming. The only argument against it is that this year, because we have not negotiated a voluntary stage 3 with the TUC that would have allowed the degree of flexibility that would have taken care of the anomalies that have built up in stages 1 and 2, the Government are reduced to trying to hold the line at 10 per cent. overall. They have issued a White Paper, paragraph 14 of which says:
It will not be possible in the next 12 months to deal with the whole range of pay anomalies


and other problems that have inevitably arisen during a period of strict pay guidelines. Only the most serious difficulties can be tackled in the coming year, if necessary on a phased basis and taking full account of the need to keep the total settlement within single figures.
This anomaly could be negotiated on a phased basis. The Association of University Teachers has assured me that it is prepared to be flexible to meet the Government's difficulties in trying to hold the line at 10 per cent. It would be prepared to make some kind of settlement that would allow the anomaly to be eliminated over a period of time on a phased basis. The Association asks that it should be given a firm assurance that the anomaly will be negotiated on that basis and asks, in addition, that there should be prearranged dates at which the phasing should take place. That seems to be an unexceptionable attitude, except, of course, that the Government do not know whether there will be a Stage 4 and what will happen next year.
That is where we come to the difficulty with the second part of the sentence in paragraph 14. The Government have told the firemen and many others that although they recognise these anomalies they cannot allow more than 10 per cent. overall. However, if we are to postpone until next year the settlement of a succession of anomalies that have accumulated not only in stages 1 and 2 but before, next year there will be a whole crop of anomalies to settle—some of them involving substantial amounts.
The police are claiming that in their case the anomaly amounts to about 90 per cent. That means that next year we shall have a similar difficulty. Even in a period of oil boom no one will say that we can have runaway inflation. The base may be lower next year, but, substantial anomalies of that kind having accumulated, the settlements will be very expensive.
Therefore, it is surely more logical—I say this with great humility to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister through my hon. Friend—to say that this year, in addition to the 10 per cent., a few anomalies should be eliminated in selected cases which are clearly special in view of their justice, the need or their contribution to the economy. I do not suggest that it is an easy task to choose such

cases, or that it can easily be done unless the trade union movement as a whole accepts that some such cases can be settled this year without adding a lever to other claims where that special case does not exist.
I believe the firemen's to be one special case. The Methodist ministers have a similar claim. The strongest case is that of Members of Parliament, but we were stupid enough to take a 25 per cent. cut in our proposed increase in order to try to set a precedent for the rest of the community, which they immediately forgot. As this was our fault, we should live with it for a while. It should teach us not to make these offers of charity to the nation.
Of the rest, the university teachers are probably very high in the list of those who, having suffered an injustice for so long, should have it eliminated immediately. That means giving them as much as can be given under the 10 per cent., plus something towards a beginning of the elimination of the anomaly. Subsequent stages in its elimination should be settled in the negotiation, and a time limit given within which that elimination will take place.
I say that with heat, because in 1974–75, when I was defending the Government against the onslaught of the lecturers from York University, I told the lecturers that they had to take the Government's pay policy that year, and that if it raised an anomaly they would have it settled in the following year. They told me then that there was never any chance of that, because by then there would be a statutory pay policy. I did not agree. They were right, and they have waited long enough. Simply to tell the university teachers tonight that they can wait till next year is not good enough, as we shall still have difficulties with pay policy then.
Of those concerned—there are only about 20,000 people in the whole of the university teaching profession—64 per cent. are lecturers earning between £3,300 and £6,000 a year, on the Department's own figures. They are only slightly above, and some are even below, the average industrial earnings. It is not by and large an occupation that leads to much greater wealth than the average. Having suffered that depreciation in their


living standards for so long, they can justifiably claim that they are a special case and that a start should be made in ridding them of the anomaly.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) for leaving me time to intervene briefly. I fully support his arguments.
I should like to add a strong personal note. I am deeply concerned about the emphasis now being given to higher education. Whereas in the 1960s it was perhaps exaggerated, it has now become the Cinderella of the education service. This is a matter of deep concern to me, not simply because of my constituency but because of my background and my belief that there are certain areas of public expenditure which are in investment for the future. I regard higher education, and particularly long-term research and the maintenance and improvement of standards in higher education, as one of the main areas of investment.
I agree that the university teachers have a strong case. They have a feeling of betrayal, a feeling of having been cheated. I hope that the Minister will respond not merely to the case raised by the university teachers but to the concern of many of us that the future of higher education should be placed on a rather more secure long-term basis than at present.

12.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) on having chosen this subject for the Adjournment debate, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on having entered the debate. It is right that the House should have the opportunity—albeit in only a short debate—of dealing with the remuneration of university teachers.
My hon. Friend said that this is a small but important group. I entirely agree that it is an important group. The fact that it is small and does not have political muscle does not necessarily mean that its claims before the House should be denied and thrown on one side. That should not happen because of its smallness.
My hon. Friend mentioned Methodist ministers and went on to refer to Members of Parliament. There are ministers other than Methodist ministers whose salaries have been fixed since 1972, but I shall not go into that issue.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who met university constituents in the Lobby on 16th November found them articulate and reasonable. Since 1974 they have borne with commendable patience a substantial depression in their salaries relative to other teachers who are engaged in work of comparable standard.
I do not go along with the hon. Member for Cambridge when lie says that higher education is the Cinderella of the education service. I remind him of the recent rate support grant settlement, which proves that that is not so.
The Government have recognised that a pay anomaly exists in respect of university teachers and have undertaken to review and rectify it as and when the constraints of pay policy permit. In my brief there is a fairly long and perhaps tedious outline of the historical facts of the university teachers' pay claim. I need not weary the House with that, because there is no contention on the historial facts.
First, I shall deal with what happened to the pay of university teachers in the summer and autumn of 1975. At the outset I must state clearly that no promises were broken. The transitional arrangements allowed under the new pay policy enabled the university teachers to receive in full the increase awarded by the arbitration board. As it turned out, the cost of living increase was less than the teachers had expected, but it had been made clear from the start that that increase would be subject to the pay policy prevailing near or at 1st October 1975.
Secondly, the anomaly has a narrow and special basis in that it frustrated the intended purpose of the arbitration, which was to specify a comparability between university teachers and other teachers engaged in comparable work.
Thirdly—I emphasise this—the university teachers were not especially picked out for punitive treatment. The anti-inflationary measures of July 1975 were applied uniformly and university teachers are by no means alone in having had their


expectations frustrated. Worse anomalies were suffered, for example, by groups that were caused by pay policy to suffer differentials within a single chain of responsibility.
What happened after that? The subsequent phase 2 of pay policy offered no relative improvement for university teachers as it limited pay increases to a standard amount within a maximum of £4 a week. The same limitation applied to other groups of employees who had suffered adversely from the timing of the introduction of pay policy in July 1975.
Whether the new phase of pay policy will allow any scope for rectifying the anomaly remains to be seen, but the settlement for university teachers must be compatible with the guidance set out in the Government's White Paper "The Attack on Inflation" of 31st July 1977, which has the following to say about dealing with the range of pay anomalies and other problems that have inevitably arisen during the past two years of strict pay guidelines:
Only the most serious difficulties can be tackled in the coming year, if necessary on a phased basis and taking full account of the need to keep the total settlement within single figures ".
What scope this offers for progress towards remedying the pay anomaly for university teachers has not yet been decided, but my Department's officials have been in frequent informal contact with representatives of the university teachers and the university authorities.
Because these informal negotations are taking place I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific question. He asked whether any time limit could be set but we are still trying to solve this very difficult problem.
Although there have been no formal negotiations yet in respect of a settlement to take effect from 1st October 1977, there is no question of the Government's going back on undertakings that were given at the time of the two previous pay settlements.
The joint statement issued on 9th December 1975 said:
As"—the Secretary of State— "has indicated in the House of Commons on 24th October 1975, in reply to questions about the general level of universities salaries, this is a matter to which the parties will have to return

when there is a different pay situation facing the nation. When that stage is reached, discussions on the implementation of the findings of the arbitral board will take place in Committee B".
The joint statement on the October 1976 settlement said:
Committee B reaffirmed their statement of 9th December 1975 and agreed that as soon as pay policy permits, they will initiate a review of the anomalous situation referred to in that statement, taking into account the implications of changes introduced in the meantime in the arrangements for financing universities".
The reference in that statement to the arrangements for financing universities refers to the cash limit that lies behind the university grant for the academic year. In announcing this grant on 28th March, my right hon. Friend said:
If the pace of pay and price increases generally, or of those which affect university expenditure, were substantially higher, taken as a whole, than those implied in the cash limit, the Government would be prepared to review the position in the light of all the circumstances of the time, including the economic consequences of higher inflation generally and the need to secure economic recovery.
The Government have acknowledged that an anomaly exists and has undertaken that it should be rectified as soon as circumstances allow. However, the university teachers are by no means unique in suffering from an anomaly. They did receive a substantial pay award in consequence of an arbitration in 1975, even though the outcome was less generous than they, the universities, or the Government had expected. They have shared with the rest of the community the advantages in terms of a reduction in the rate of inflation which has been mainly due to the financial and economic measures applied by the Government since 1975.
The university teachers can see the ultimate advantages of what the Government are doing in regard to pay guidelines, despite the fact that they are one of the most adversely affected sections of the community. They have the absolute assurance that the Government intend to rectify their disadvantage when circumstances permit.
I do not want to be questioned further on it at the moment, because, as I have told the House, informal negotiations are taking place between the AUT, the university authorities and my Department on ways that may make it possible to deal


with this situation, but I must emphasise that with the university teachers, as with the firemen, the power workers and other groups in the community, the Government must hold the line. The interests of the community as a whole must come first,

and within the interests of the community as a whole come the interests of the university teachers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.